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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: ClientInterface (was Re: Fwd: [PATCH] kernel / UI separation -
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-07-13 23:00:57
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Friday 11 July 2003 20:30, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> On Friday 11 July 2003 09:22, Don Sanders wrote:
> > Regarding the comment.
> > +// TODO - this needs effort to separate kernel and GUI
> > This issue should be resolved before the patch is committed to cvs.
> > Is it possible to use a SYNC dcop method to show a Yes/No messagebox
> > and return the result? Eventually we might be able to architect
> > KMail so that only ASYNC dcop methods are used, but I think it makes
> > sense to have a transitional period where SYNC methods are used.
>
> I've already thought about this issue, and I agree with you. It can 
> get solved using a sync dcop call right now, but I also thought about
> a way to avoid such sync calls later. But this requires deeper changes
> in the existing codebase, I would like to concentrate on the dcop
> issue for now. I'll commit as soon as I have the TODOs eliminated.

I just returned from LinuxTag 2003 in Karlsruhe. During LinuxTag I 
talked with Cornelius, Tobias (tokoe) and Marc about the UI separation. 
No decisions where made but we definitely see the need to talk 
about this some more because this is a very serious decision which will 
have a very high impact on the future of KMail (So why Cornelius and 
Tobias? Because they would like to use some of KMail's functionality in 
KO resp. in KAB). Although I was at first quite enthusiastic about the 
DCOP approach, the others don't think that using DCOP is a good idea. 
So we really need to talk about this in a larger group. I would prefer 
to postpone any decision until Nove Hrady where we will have the unique 
opportunity to talk about this from face to face.

I'm very sorry, Andreas, for all the work that you put into this, but 
please understand that we mustn't rush such a radical change into KMail 
without giving it a lot of thought.

For KDE 3.2 we primarily have to concentrate on making Kontact a 
full-featured and rock-stable Kolab client because that's what the 
corporate users need. LinuxTag showed that a lot of people are waiting 
for Kontact because without a working Outlook/Exchange replacement it's 
impossible for them to even think about migrating from Windows to 
Linux.

Regards,
Ingo


[Attachment #5 (application/pgp-signature)]

_______________________________________________
KMail Developers mailing list
kmail@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail


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