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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: konqview's gui as "standalone" part
From:       Dawit Alemayehu <adawit () earthlink ! net>
Date:       1999-02-24 3:14:29
[Download RAW message or body]

On Tue, 23 Feb 1999, Simon Hausmann wrote:
>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>>On Mon, 22 Feb 1999, Waldo Bastian wrote:
>>>Dawit Alemayehu wrote:
>>>> >1) Should the location toolbar be present? (IMHO yes)
>>>
>>>> Yes And No.  What if the parent application where konqview is embedded wants 
>>>> to provide all the GUI interfaces itself ? 
>>>
>>>Then it should run as an stand alone application and not embedded in
>>>konqueror.
>>
>>Well what I was trying to get at here is that most applications that
>>want to embed konqueror do so in order to allow a user to browse whatever
>>resource ( local directory, ftp, web ...).  In that case I, as the application
>>developer, might not need the GUI interfaces of konqueror at all.  IMHO, all I
>>would need is one of its views and an interface to control this view.
>
>Well, this is no problem with David's proposal number one and my IDL draft:
>The view will always (no matter what proposal) have an open interface you can
>access to control the view.
>Then you've got two choices:
>(1) You can either create an implementation of the Konqueror GUI interface
>(beside Konqueror's own implementation) and use this one as GUI interface for
>the view. (but I don't think that there will be any application doing this
>although it's technically possible :-)
>
>(2) Or you can re-parent the view and make it a part-child of your part. Then
>the parent part's GUI will stay visible/active if the parent-part is active and
>you'll simply get notified if the child-part gets the focus.
>(and you can still control the view via it's interface)

Please excuse my ignorance on the design of KOM/OpenParts and konqueror.  I have
saved all the discussions in the kfm-devel list on this issue.  I just did not have time to
go over all of them yet.  However, option (2) sounds like what I was looking
for. What I was thinking of when I wrote my reply was kmail and its inability to
display html content.  If kmail wants to provide this feature in the future for
example,  it would want to use one of the views provided by knoqurer to
accomplish this. And hence the issue about the GUI ( in this case, I presume it
won't be needed at all ).  Anyway, I think your description above allows one to
accomplish adequetly. 


>Does this fulfill your "request" ? :-)
>
>>
>>Dawit A.
>>
>
>Greetings,
> Simon
>
>--
>Simon Hausmann - Tronical^Colorfast - <tronical@gmx.net> - IRCNet #colorfast
>
>we have joy, we have fun, we have linux on our sun

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