From kde-core-devel  Tue Dec 21 20:53:51 2004
From: Leo Savernik <l.savernik () aon ! at>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2004 20:53:51 +0000
To: kde-core-devel
Subject: Re: KIO->GnomeVFS bridge started (looking for a Common-VFS)
Message-Id: <200412212154.06420.l.savernik () aon ! at>
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=110366215624411
MIME-Version: 1
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="--nextPart2952361.zvnHDXfApt"

--nextPart2952361.zvnHDXfApt
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Disposition: inline

Am Dienstag, 21. Dezember 2004 19:49 schrieb Jason Keirstead:
> > I think using KIOSlave code inside Gnome-VFS is definitely a good idea.
> > But i would not use them as they are, but rather write a C++ porting
> > layer on top of the Gnome-VFS modules concept which almost acts like the
> > SlaveBase class, but without Qt stuff inside. Porting them should be
> > possible, because the Qt bindings of io-slaves are not very strong.
>
> Why would you want take the existing KDE code, write a porting layer, and
> move it to GVFS? (and then, I assume, port KIO to use GVFS?) All you are
> doing is introducing additional code paths and potential bugs in the
> slaves.

Heh. This reminds me of the discussion to make Qt being based on gtk2 for=20
drawing and event handling. First I thought the guy was making a joke, but =
in=20
the course of the discussion I realised he was dead serious.

Luckily, no coding was ever done on that attempt :-)

mfg
 Leo

--nextPart2952361.zvnHDXfApt
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQBByI1uj5jssenUYTsRAu4gAJ9pMz1zP1J4g/r2wzxnHOwvIlNo1gCeO1Y7
e2hbWg/2tUtOqNvOncY7veQ=
=x8tO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2952361.zvnHDXfApt--