-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday, 14. June 2001 12:55, Andreas Gungl wrote:

> Am Donnerstag 14 Juni 2001 11:40 schrieb Ingo Klöcker:
> > On Wednesday, 13. June 2001 08:21, Andreas Gungl wrote:
> > > IMO it's too much effort adding parameters to those two Kpgp
> > > methods. Wouldn't it be enough to call Kpgp::setUser(<Id>) before
> > > doing a call to Kpgp::encryptFor(...) and Kpgp::sign(...)?
> >
> > Adding a new parameter makes it clear that Kpgp::encryptFor(...)
> > and Kpgp::sign(...) will only work correctly if the PGP identity is
> > given (although this is an optional parameter in my patch which was
> > not a good idea because the correct behaviour of these two member
> > functions depends on the given PGP identity). IHMO it makes no
> > sense to force developers which use Kpgp to always first call
> > setUser(<Id>) before calling encryptFor(...) or sign(...). At least
> > one developer will forget to make this mandatory call of
> > setUser(<Id>) and then he will wonder why his program behaves
> > strange.
>
> Then there is another question: when we set the user explicitly for
> signing and encryptToSelf, why should we use setUser() any longer?
> Well, I don't have the sources here in the office, but I would think,
> these calls are no longer necessary then.
> Hm, I'll better look at the sources tonight.

Currently setUser() is still called from within 
KMComposeWin::slotIdentityActivated(). This will of course be obsolete 
after my patch has been applied. Therefore setUser() can safely be 
removed.
I'll update my patch accordingly.

Regards,
Ingo
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQE7KLcsGnR+RTDgudgRAjYkAJ0fQBGP3XeLDh+mUI7qyGCb5XbQkgCbByGR
a+DFuNN+6lVHwCxybm+qfkU=
=StBU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Kmail Developers mailing list
Kmail@master.kde.org
http://master.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kmail