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

List:       kde-core-devel
Subject:    DCOP interfaces (Re: little problems with kicker and docking)
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-06-24 15:43:14
[Download RAW message or body]

On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 05:38:02PM +0200, Carsten Pfeiffer wrote:
> On Sat, Jun 24, 2000 at 03:13:05PM +0100, David Faure wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> > You don't need to, they are generated by header files. Better 
> > install the actual header files that describe those interfaces.
> > (recent example: kdelibs/kio/kdirnotify.h)
> 
> I know, but are interfaces generated out of headerfiles?
Yes, that's what dcopidl does.

> No hand-written process() methods?
> Ok, then there would be no .kidl file either.
Exactly... Hand written process methods should get documented by
some other way.... there's no header nor kidl for them. But dynamic
exploration as was suggested in another post would indeed solve this
since hand-written process() are supposed to provide a corresponding functions()

> So... should all the headerfiles get documented and put into
> $KDEDIRS[0]/interfaces?
You mean, like kicker's ? It's quite inconsistent, having most headers in
include/ (even those that define DCOP interfaces) and some in interfaces/.
Or should headers like knotify.h be put in both ?
(It has to be in include/ as well, since classes inherits from it).

For dynamic exploration, don't we have all the necessary iterators in
dcop ? Getting the list of registered apps, and for each the registered
objects, and for each the functions ?

-- 
David FAURE, david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://home.clara.net/faure/, http://www.konqueror.org/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today
See http://www.kde.org/kde1-and-kde2.html for how to set up KDE 2

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