On Sunday 12 May 2002 03:42, Martijn Klingens wrote:

> If you want to support value-based KopeteMessages as opposed to using
> pointers to them you do. After all the operator= should be made virtual if
> the size of the object is unknown. If we use pointers then you're right,
> although I thought we agreed that the ability to allow copying KMs was a
> big plus.

ah ok, didn't know we wanted value based KMs. i still believe allowing KM 
subclasses isn't really that heavyweight (even if it's got a vtbl). but i do 
foresee other problems, like the creation the message (we'd need a factory 
method provided by the plugin... would be a bit more complex).

> Sure. But apart from the optionsWidget, or whatever the post-0.4 approach
> will be I don't see that much cases for such roundtrips.

that's true as long as we don't use subclasses :-). ok, let's postpone this 
discussion.

> Uhm... implement *what* ? (Note that I rather try to fix the chats in MSN
> though, that's another showstopper for putting KMM branch out as 0.4.)

KMPluginData (or whatever approach is chosen). though if you're busy with MSN 
chats, somebody else should be doing it...

cheers,

-- 
Andres
_______________________________________________
Kopete-devel mailing list
Kopete-devel@mail.kde.org
http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kopete-devel