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

List:       kfm-devel
Subject:    Re: kdeinit
From:       David Faure <david () mandrakesoft ! com>
Date:       2000-04-05 11:58:27
[Download RAW message or body]

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 02:14:47PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> 
> libtool: link: libtool library `konqueror.la' must begin with `lib'
> Try `libtool --help --mode=link' for more information.
Tried that ? ;-)

> make[1]: *** [konqueror.la] Error 1
> 
> /me clueless :-)

Hmm, I couldn't find any relevant difference with, say, kcookiejar/Makefile.am
which defines a kcookiejar.la, and a binary that links to it...

Indeed, it looks like a name clash - triggering a bug in libtool ?
(or some code that is there to avoid stupid mistakes like forgetting
lib when the lib's name starts with 'lib' :)

> > libkonqueror is the stuff that is used to all konqueror views, right ?
> > (at least the builtin ones). That's the one we could rename
> > (say to libkonqcore or libkonqgui)
> > 
> > and konqueror.so is just a kdeinit trick, we have to stick to that name.
> > 
> > But right, this shows we use shared libs for too many things now ;-)
> > 
> > In any case, we certainly don't want to merge libkonq and libkonqueror.
> > Take kicker, for instance. It simply needs the properties dialog
> > (which needs KonqFileItem). We surely don't want kicker to link
> > to ALL the konqueror code (including the mainview, childview, all that stuff)
> > just for that. Same for kfind, etc.
> > The "file manager construction kit" concept makes sense. The name of its lib not :-)
> 
> BTW, libkonqueror does not contain the mainview, childview code. It only
> contains the shared stuff, like the Konqueror KInstance, the background
> dialog for the iconview and the props stuff. (well, see yourself :-)
Ooops, indeed.

> I can see your concerns of "bloating" libkonq with konqueror-specific
> stuff, and I also agree that libkonq is a good name for the file
> management "kit", but OTOH IMHO libkonqueror (the current one) does not
> contain any heavy/huge code (which would require lots of relocations,
> etc.) .

You're right. Some numbers: here, libkonq is 394K, konqueror is 223K,
and libkonqueror is 69K.
And htmlsettings will move out or be removed, propsmainview has nothing
to do in there (!?!), so we could merge the rest
(propsview, events, bgnddlg, and factory) in libkonq, though only
konqueror views need those...
This makes me wonder, for each of those, why would the builtin views
(iconview,listview) need them and not khtmlpart ?
If we defined a factory in iconview and listview, the usual way, we could
avoid putting konqfactory in libkonq, right ?

> Anyway, you decide :-) . I don't really care if we keep libkonqueror or
> not. I'm mostly interested in getting konqueror.la, for a faster startup.

I suggest you rename libkonqueror to libkonqview and we step by step
remove stuff from it...

-- 
David FAURE
david@mandrakesoft.com, faure@kde.org
http://home.clara.net/faure/
KDE, Making The Future of Computing Available Today

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