Source Compatability and DCOP

Thomas Zander zander at
Thu Aug 8 19:11:11 BST 2002

Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 08 August 2002 06:36, Don Sanders wrote:
> On Thursday 08 August 2002 06:31, Cornelius Schumacher wrote:
> > On Wednesday 07 August 2002 19:15, Waldo Bastian wrote:
> > > On Wednesday 07 August 2002 07:40 am, Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
> > > > 	I noticed KAddressbook changed its dcop interface in a Source
> > > > Incompatible manner.  This i guess broke KPilot, but worse it
> > > > seems to have broken a few scripts I had done for a client for
> > > > adding information to their addressbook from my TWIG web mail
> > > > interface.
> > > >
> > > > 	Is there a policy on breaking DCOP interfaces on sub releases?
> > >
> > > DCOP interfaces are part of the API and MUST remain compatible.
> >
> > I don't think this is true in this case. The KAddressbook DCOP
> > interface header file isn't installed to the system and it uses
> > private classes of KAddressbook. This can't be part of the API we
> > have to be compatible to.
> Cornelius is correct, this DCOP interface is not part of an API that
> we should remain compatible with.

While I don't mind the breakage since the app was virtually rewritten, I do 
think any DCOP interface is implicitely public. That basically is the sole 
purpose of the interface...

In KWord the DCOP interface will be used by external scripts, imagine us 
changing the syntax so all those scripts don't work anymore *shrudder*

Anyway; please take into account these thoughts when making a release with a 
DCOP interface enabled :)

btw. Thanx for the great software!

> IIRC the KAddressBook DCOP interface was commented as being for the
> use of KPilot.
Hmm. Since DCOP is self documenting for the script writers that seems to be an 
odd statement..

- -- 
Thomas Zander                                           zander at
                                                 We are what we pretend to be
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list