[Kde-bindings] RE: KDE.NET

[Richard Dale]

On Thursday 22 April 2004 18:58, Martin Welch wrote:
> >>Maybe a better starting point would be a cut down version of
> >>Qt# v1/QtC with all the unwanted classes removed.
>
> I know it goes against the grain to reinvent the wheel but I'm not
> convinced that using existing bindings is the right answer for two reasons:
>
> First, the bindings won't deal with callbacks->delegates (?) so I've had to
> override KMainWindow to do this. All the necessary bindings I've written
> use CMainWindow, not KMainWindow.
The SMOKE library has all the virtual method callbacks, so you can override 
C++ methods in the target language. But then Kimono isn't working yet.

		protected virtual bool QueryClose() {
			return ProxyKMainWindow().QueryClose();
		}

> Second, consider the following:
>
> void CMainWindow::SetIsMdiContainer(bool value)
> {
> 	if ( value == true )
> 	{
> 		if ( m_pWorkspace == 0 )
> 		{
> 			QVBox* vb = new QVBox( this );
> 			vb->setFrameStyle( QFrame::StyledPanel | QFrame::Sunken );
> 			m_pWorkspace = new QWorkspace( vb );
> 			m_pWorkspace->setScrollBarsEnabled( TRUE );
> 			setCentralWidget( vb );
> 		}
> 	}
> }
>
> This one function, with one binding, I believe, if far better than the
> sequence of binding API's I'd need to call using the C bindings. There's
> less bindings and the performance would be better.
I suppose the tradeoff is that if you wrote the logic in C#, you be more 
likely to get other people to help out than if they needed to write it in 
C++.

> >>On the other hand if you
> >>don't use any KDE classes it won't really be a KDE project.
>
> Right. I want to create KDE.NET, not Qt.NET. I know I'm getting ahead of
> myself but perhaps one day I could create a KPart in C# - or VB!
>
> >>I wonder
> >>if there's any code that could be borrowed from the Gtk version.
>
> That's quite possible.
>
> >>one which uses Wine for maximum compatibilty
> >>with existing native code widgets
>
> I might be wrong here but I think most people use P/Invoke to handle the
> fact that SWF is actually quite limited and primitive. I know that's all
> I've used it for.
>
> >> I probably know stuff about polish()
>
> My lack of KDE knowledge is certainly slowing me down but then one of the
> reasons for starting this in the first place was to learn KDE programming.
> Any help is welcome :)
Well in C# expertise is very welcome. The only thing is a name clash, if I 
start calling the SMOKE Qt ones Qt.NET. What about Qt.SWF instead, does that 
seem a good one?

-- Richard