bastian at kde.org
Thu Jun 26 15:13:05 BST 2003
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thursday 26 June 2003 15:13, Ian Reinhart Geiser wrote:
> Needless to say, for end developers there is no reason other than to build
> a backend that one needs KConfigBase, and from what I can see KConfigBase
> should go away asap. Unless someone (waldo) knows of a VERY good reason
> why such an evil pair as KConfig/KConfigBase should exist together?
KConfigBase provides the API, KConfigBackEnd the backend, and KConfig provides
storage and ties the two together.
This gives you some design flexibility that allows for things as KConfigGroup
which implements the KConfigBase API, but shares the backend and storage of
another KConfig object.
I don't see any reason why it should go away. You say yourself that you hardly
ever use it as an "end developer", so why do you care about it either way?
bastian at kde.org -=|[ SuSE, The Linux Desktop Experts ]|=- bastian at suse.com
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the kde-core-devel