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

List:       osdl-lsb-discuss
Subject:    Re: [lsb-discuss] Qt 4 decision
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () kde ! org>
Date:       2007-09-05 13:12:58
Message-ID: 200709050713.02484.aseigo () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Wednesday 05 September 2007, Markus Rex wrote:
> I would prefer the 1st option, although the sheer number of interfaces
> could make this a timing challenge.

speaking as a Qt user and KDE developer, not a Trolltech person:

first thing that popped at me is that several of the listed interfaces are not 
useful to document or are already documented but under a different title. 
e.g. testAttribute_helper which is just used internally by testAttribute (but 
to do so needs to be exposed). others are just pretty damn obvious as to what 
they do, such as as the operator<<(QDebug, Class) ones.

while important for completeness' sake, it would inane IMHO to hold things up 
for these sorts of items. documenting the 361 methods and functions (not 361 
classes, which would be a different scope of a problem altogether) listed on 
the "Regular" sheet is a matter of a few days of work. boring work, but not 
something that requires weeks of work. compare with the number of documented 
interfaces and you'll see that 361 is pretty tiny.

documenting the methods on the Meta page is also rather unuseful since they 
all simply extend the inherited methods from QObject to do exactly the same 
thing they do in QObject but in class-specific ways. documenting them would 
really be a matter of copy and pasting the documentation from QObject. how 
useful is that?

78 destructors? heh. "destroys the object". yeah, that's highly critical 
information missing there ;)

it is good to know that there is the commitment to improve/fix things as 
needed on the part of Trolltech (see Jesper's email in this thread), and 
dotting the i's and crossing the t's is important .... but this isn't the 
sort of thing that should hold up inclusion in the LSB given all the other 
actually useful work that's been done to date.

again, this is just my personal opinion as a developer who uses Qt and would 
like to see the LSB become more real-world relevant, and not Trolltech's 
position or say on the matter =)

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech

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

_______________________________________________
lsb-discuss mailing list
lsb-discuss@lists.linux-foundation.org
https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lsb-discuss


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