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

List:       nepomuk
Subject:    [Nepomuk] Nepomuk2 namespace (was Nepomuk - Moving out of kde-runtime)
From:       Ivan Cukic <ivan.cukic () kde ! org>
Date:       2012-05-23 7:43:45
Message-ID: 1909899.koLsxa4z6h () drako
[Download RAW message or body]

This goes only to nepomuk ml.

Just one quesiton, why are all nepomuk's .cpp files done in a manner to =

specify the namespace for each implemented methos instead of just putting t=
he =

contents in a namespace Nepomuk { ... } block.

So, why this:

Nepomuk::Class::someMethod1(...) { ... }
Nepomuk::Class::someMethod2(...) { ... }
Nepomuk::Class::someMethod3(...) { ... }
Nepomuk::Class::someMethod4(...) { ... }

Instead of this:

namespace Nepomuk {
Class::someMethod1(...) { ... }
Class::someMethod2(...) { ... }
Class::someMethod3(...) { ... }
Class::someMethod4(...) { ... }
}

I'm asking this because if, for KF5, we are (hopefully) to choose some othe=
r =

namespace name (for example Nepomuk again), it would need less changes to t=
he =

code, since Sebastian didn't like the idea of having a macro for the nepomu=
k =

namespace like Qt does.

Cheerio,
Ivan


On Wednesday, 23. May 2012. 5.04.37 Vishesh Handa wrote:
> Sebastian
> =

> Change of plans. As per recent discussions with tsdgeos and kde_pepo on
> #kde-devel -
> =

> They would like to avoid too many new repositories. So, if it's okay with
> you we'll keep the nepomuk-kde-config and nepomuk-kde-kio code in
> kde-runtime, while the rest can be removed as it is there in nepomuk-core.
> =

> If you have the time to port some of the stuff to Nepomuk2 it would be
> nice, otherwise I'll take care of all of it tomorrow.
> =

> Good Night
> =

> On Tue, May 22, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Vishesh Handa <me@vhanda.in> wrote:
> > Does anyone have suggestions on where nepomuk-kde-kio and
> > nepomuk-kde-config should be placed?
> > =

> > I was thinking under kde-baseaps, but that might not be correct. Any
> > suggestions?
> > =

> > On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 1:45 AM, Kevin Krammer <krammer@kde.org> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, 2012-05-17, Sebastian Tr=FCg wrote:
> >> > I think we can manage BC. The only thing that would be hard are the
> >> > DBus
> >> > interfaces. But since nepomuk-core contains client libs which are
> >> > supposed to be used instead of the dbus interfaces...
> >> =

> >> I think as long as you didn't advertise the D-Bus interfaces as a kind=
 of
> >> public API, e.g. by installing D-Bus introspection XML files, that sho=
uld
> >> be
> >> fine.
> >> =

> >> Cheers,
> >> Kevin
> >> =

> >> > On 05/17/2012 09:19 PM, Sune Vuorela wrote:
> >> > > On 2012-05-17, Vishesh Handa <me@vhanda.in> wrote:
> >> > >> @Packagers: We will not be maintaining binary compatibility in
> >> > >> nepomuk-core. At least not for KDE 4.10. We still need to break a
> >> =

> >> lot of
> >> =

> >> > >> things.
> >> > > =

> >> > > NACK.
> >> > > =

> >> > > this is a completely no go.
> >> > > =

> >> > > /Sune
> >> > > =

> >> > >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >> > >> unsubscribe <<
> >> =

> >> --
> >> Kevin Krammer, KDE developer, xdg-utils developer
> >> KDE user support, developer mentoring
> >> =

> >> >> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to
> >> =

> >> unsubscribe <<
> > =

> > --
> > Vishesh Handa
-- =

I don't really trust a sane person.
  -- Lyle Alzado

_______________________________________________
Nepomuk mailing list
Nepomuk@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/nepomuk
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]