[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    Re: "Cornelius's grand plan" - Merging KDElibs into Qt
From:       Matt Williams <lists () milliams ! com>
Date:       2010-10-31 17:53:18
Message-ID: AANLkTim-kJUKU3fk+jJKzaWfqbXb+62re1KNGrVUh3LM () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

2010/10/31 Alexander Neundorf <neundorf@kde.org>:
> On Sunday 31 October 2010, todd rme wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 31, 2010 at 9:26 AM, Michael Jansen
> <kde@michael-jansen.biz>wrote:
> ...
>> >   1. Small improvements to the Qt Libraries
>> >
>> > Those are the so called convenient classes. Classes the have been added
>> > to the
>> > KDE Libs because of some shortcomings of the Qt Classes or to add some
>> > convenience methods. I guess classes like KUrl and KIcon (at least parts)
>> > fall
>> > into that category.
>> >
>> > The classes in this category do not add additional functionality,
>> > requirements
>> > or anything else to the Qt Classes.
>>
>> I think this sounds like the place to start, for several reasons:
>
> I don't think the place to start is merging something into Qt.
> _We_ can't merge something ourselves, it must be accepted. So we would be
> stuck at the first step.
>
> IMO the place to start must be to reorganize our libraries so that we can
> clearly separate these different types, i.e. "enhancements which should be in
> Qt", "addons", "platform".
> Once we have this (I would estimate something like a year of work), we may
> start to try to get some of the enhancements into Qt.
> And if it doesn't get accepted then, still no problem, since by then it will
> have the form of a smallish library with very few or no dependencies beside
> the Qt libs.

Absolutely. I think that this is the most sensible and practical
approach to take.

-- 
Matt Williams
http://milliams.com

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]