From kde-freeqt  Sun Feb 21 12:36:59 1999
From: Fester Zigterman <fzr () dds ! nl>
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 12:36:59 +0000
To: kde-freeqt
Subject: Re: [freeqt] Even more Harmony with Harmony
X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kde-freeqt&m=91960398602351

On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, you wrote:
>Clemmitt Sigler (siglercm@alphamb2.phys.vt.edu) spake thusly:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I'm just a novice subscriber to the Harmony list, but here's my question:
>> 
>> It seems to me that this is the rub with restarting Harmony.  Finishing
>> the work that was started to make Harmony QT 1.4x-compliant is one thing.
>> But add to that all the additional work to bring it up to QT 2.x
>> compliance.  Won't this be a problem?  That's a lot of additional work.
>
>   Yes it would be a problem. And by the time it was complete we'd be
>on Qt 2.1. This is one reason why I don't think there's much point in
>continuing Harmony ;)

Why not make Harmony a KDE support library?
Just implement the classes that are essential for KDE core programs.

Make KDE independent from QT, and let developers choose whether they want
their app to use a full-featured QT or just the KDE support classes, with or
without the rest of the KDE libs :) . I would think this library might be
smaller too, so some users/developers might even prefer it over QT.
I think making the KDE core independent of QT is a step in the right direction.

As for the theming stuff, i thought Harmony was already designed with theming
in mind?


Just my 2 cents :)

BYE
Fester Zigterman