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

List:       kmail-devel
Subject:    Re: [PATCH] ClientInterface (next try)
From:       Ingo =?iso-8859-1?q?Kl=F6cker?= <kloecker () kde ! org>
Date:       2003-07-27 22:55:10
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Sunday 27 July 2003 00:16, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> Hi,
>
> as discussed long enough on this list, this time I tried to use an
> approach to separate only existing core and UI code. Those who
> reviewed my last patch will have it easy to compare to this one. I
> used kmsender as an example again. And again two issues are open (the
> interactive messagebox and the password dialog). Both require
> significantly more work, so before I continue I better ask about your
> opinions now.
> Special hotspots are:
> - Is my choosen way of handling the strings for the UI okay?
> - I used direct calls to the KMClientInterface's methods. I believe
> that this is appropriate for the moment. If necessary we can switch
> to signals/slots later.

Are those calls necessary at all? Wouldn't it be much better, i. e. 
cleaner and easier to implement, if the core methods would simply 
return an error code. And then the UI code would display an appropriate 
message box.
The progress info probably has to be implemented with back-calls. But 
all those call-backs just to display an error message might be 
overkill.

The two open issues could maybe also easily be solved by returning an 
error code and letting the UI code ask for the user's decision or the 
password.

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]