From kmail-devel Tue Sep 17 23:52:56 2002 From: Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2002 23:52:56 +0000 To: kmail-devel Subject: Re: Last attempt at reconciliation X-MARC-Message: https://marc.info/?l=kmail-devel&m=103230768410793 =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Tuesday 17 September 2002 21:35, Zack Rusin wrote: > - we have KMime almost finished. It's a fantastic library maintained > by our own Marc Mutz. Don did with Mimelib what he thought would be > impossible with it, and was one of the reasons KMime was born. Now > Don doesn't want to spend more time integrating KMime since Mimelib > fullfills our basic needs and Marc has been insulted as he feels that > all his work is going down the drain. I had a conversation with Don > about switching to KMime - he has _no_ problem with it, it's just > that he works on different things within KMail so can't work on it. > The problem that we would face while switching KMime is the lack of > substring sharing string class like DwString. Marc maybe we could add > one to libkdenetwork and make KMime use it? I volunteer to write one > and spend time porting KMime to it. This would solve the only problem > Don ever had with switching to KMime and let us do the switch. > Comments? Go for it. > - we have two approaches to integrate KMail with kdepim packages. > kgroupware has one and make_it_cool has one. The big problem I have > with the kgroupware approach is that it majorly bloats KMail code, > making it even harder to understand - for people who want to help us > - and for ourselves. And to be completely honest, even on screenshots > it looks not too promising. I find Don's and Daniel's approach with > Kaplan _way_ superior. I think Kaplan and KMail as KPart is the way > to go. Comments? As I already wrote in another message I much prefer the Kaplan approach=20 over the KOrganizer-in-KMail approach. > - now people have problems with changes in make_it_cool. I want to > know exactly what changes from make_it_cool bother you so much, so in > no particular order: > o my folder rework, asynchronous access to all folders, common > interface, all folder use kmfolderjob, no distinction between local > and imap folders. Problems? What? Why? No problems. > o Don's KMail as KPart, Very good. > KMMainReadWin addition Also very good. We just didn't want to have the half finished version of=20 this in KDE 3.1. But for KDE 3.2 this is definitely a great addition. > and zero-copy parsing > with mimelib - I already talked about the first, Don cleaned up the > second and fixed things which seemed to bother some people when it > was in HEAD, has anyone better approaches to the third? I remember > that one being a major problem, so let's come up with solution we all > can be happy with. zero-copy parsing is good. But please let's get rid of mimelib. > o Aaron's work on GUI - IMHO Aaron is by far the biggest usability > expert among us, I trust all his judgments. Did anyone have a problem > with him having a free hand in making needed GUI changes? So far, no problems. > o Daniel wants to refactor a lot of stuff - getting rid of the KM > prefix, putting classes in the KMail namespace and putting files into > a more approachable dir structure. Any problems with that? Namespacing is good. Getting rid of the KM is also o.k. But I'm not sure=20 about the dir structure. How should it look like? Regards, Ingo =2D----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE9h8BYGnR+RTDgudgRAlRoAKDEVqk741l41eg4jK1vV53nq6b6PACfQABy YU8dV4eWqy8UpabiBOCKa3I=3D =3DEjdu =2D----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ KMail Developers mailing list kmail@mail.kde.org http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail