From kde-core-devel Sun Nov 20 16:22:35 2005 From: Richard Moore Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 16:22:35 +0000 To: kde-core-devel Subject: Re: moving KNotification in kdelibs. Message-Id: <5491a5150511200822s12579c92p5375a9260a1f4dae () mail ! gmail ! com> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-core-devel&m=113250376007666 MIME-Version: 1 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------=_Part_2317_22967842.1132503755075" ------=_Part_2317_22967842.1132503755075 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline On 11/20/05, Olivier Goffart wrote: > > But this is to respect the "complicated-passive-popup spec" This spec only offers a subset of the flexibility I put in the KPassivePopup API - for example, a KPassivePopup can be a 'passive dialog' when the API is used directly rather than via KNoitfy (it can contain arbitrary widgets). Is the idea that these should all be handled by the daemon? Cheers Rich. ------=_Part_2317_22967842.1132503755075 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline

On 11/20/05, Olivier Goffart <ogoffart@kde.o= rg> wrote:
But this is to respect the "= ;complicated-passive-popup spec"
 
This spec only offers a subset of the flexibility I put in the KPassiv= ePopup API - for example, a KPassivePopup can be a 'passive dialog' when th= e API is used directly rather than via KNoitfy (it can contain arbitrary wi= dgets). Is the idea that these should all be handled by the daemon?
 
Cheers
 
Rich.
 

 
------=_Part_2317_22967842.1132503755075--