refactoring EngineController to depend directly on Phonon

[Jeff Mitchell]

On Monday 17 March 2008, Ian Monroe wrote:
> What do people think about not using plugins at all for our audio
> backend? I was actually arguing against this idea with Max K just a
> couple of days ago. But then I looked at trying to fix some of the
> issues with the phonon backend and noticed what a mess
> EngineController is. I also noticed that not much calls
> EngineController really (just its currentTrack method), so I don't
> think it would be so painful.
>
> Outside of EngineController (and perhaps supporting classes) we should
> continue to have no Phonon includes, with the possible exception of
> PhononNamespace which has Phonon's state system that would probably
> make sense to switch too (no more rough conversions between different
> state systems).

I haven't looked at Phonon's state system, but in a general sense I am all for 
removing messy code and putting something simpler in that provides the same 
functionality.

From working on Playlist bugs in 1.4 I can add my voice that the Controller 
code is painful.

--Jeff