From kde-devel Mon Dec 18 07:11:00 2006 From: Oswald Buddenhagen Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2006 07:11:00 +0000 To: kde-devel Subject: Re: KProcess api Message-Id: <20061218071100.GA4359 () ugly ! local> X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-devel&m=116642589203142 On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 09:44:52PM +0100, Adriaan de Groot wrote: > On Sunday 17 December 2006 12:07, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Sun, Dec 17, 2006 at 02:42:21AM +0100, Ji?í Pale?ek wrote: > > > Is there a chance that it will be possible in KDE4? > > > > b) we screw the kprocess-derived-from-qprocess idea and do it > > ourselves. the effort is considerable, though. i don't think i can > > afford it any time soon. > > I missed the first part of this thread, but have you looked at > KExtProcess? I has a bunch of things up its sleeve. > last time we discussed KEP it had a relevance for kprocess as such which is rather close to zero. it works at a much higher level. to bring kprocess en par with qprocess, we'd have to: - completely change the api. that is the simplest but biggest part. - make it thred-safe. that's tough - port it to windows *cough* another "challenge" is, that i know qprocess pretty well and find it rather good for most parts, so not infringing any tt copyrights isn't exactly a trivial thing. let alone the fact that cloning a huge class because of a few missing features is just braindead. otoh, tt refused several of my requests based on lack of resources - and completely ignored my patches and offer to do some contract work on that topic. tt as we know it, i'd say. -- Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please! -- Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done. >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<