KConfig Bug?

[Waldo Bastian]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

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?

Cheers,
Waldo
- -- 
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

iD8DBQE++v9xN4pvrENfboIRAn6sAJ4xgZs9cCU64jV5jZjmPY+EeMmvawCgpfly
DdJJsF9VNaK9/qFTgbcr9fA=
=Li9v
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----