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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: KFileDialog patch - request for comments
From:       Trevor Harmon <trevor () vocaro ! com>
Date:       2002-06-27 17:50:32
[Download RAW message or body]

On Thursday 27 June 2002 4:12 am, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> On Wednesday 26 June 2002 10:25 am, Trevor Harmon wrote:
> > A possibly big problem is binary compatibility, which I don't know much
> > about. I think that by changing the constuctor's signature, any KDE 3.0
> > program that uses KFileDialog would have to be recompiled if this patch
> > is applied for KDE 3.1. Is this correct?
>
> To overcome that you can add a second constructor which takes an extra
> argument.

OK, done. I had to add a new protected function to handle the common 
initialization code for both constructors. (IOW, I re-factored.)

Something else I just thought of...I had to add a new data member to a 
dynamically allocated struct (KFileDialogPrivate) in order to save a copy of 
the QWidget pointer. But according to the following, adding data members to 
non-static structs breaks binary compatibility:

http://developer.kde.org/documentation/library/kdeqt/kde3arch/devel-binarycompatibility.html

I suppose I could add a new struct simply for holding this new QWidget data 
pointer. That wouldn't break binary compatibility, would it? Yes, it's 
inelegant, but I don't know what else to do, and I suppose we could always 
fix it later in KDE 4, which won't demand binary compatibility. Any other 
suggestions on how to get around this?

If you're interested, you can see my lastest patches here:

http://www.vocaro.com/kfiledialog.cpp.patch
http://www.vocaro.com/kfiledialog.h.patch

Trevor


>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]