[RFC] KConfigBase v KConfig

[Thomas Braxton]

On Friday 04 November 2005 06:51 am, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> Am Freitag, 4. November 2005 13:44 schrieb Thomas Braxton:
> > Does anyone have any problems with changing almost all KConfig*'s to
> > KConfigBase*'s? It seems to me that there are very few places you
> > *really* need to know if it's a KConfig or not.
>
> The Base* is an internal implementation detail. No reason to spread it.
> What you _could_ think abut is renaming the classes, but even that I see
> not of any gain. What gain do you promise yourself?
>
> Greetings, Stephan
KConfigBase is the Interface of the config classes. IMHO KConfig is the 
implementation detail. It specifies that you are only able to use the 
standard KDE configuration class, instead of the generic KDE configuration 
classes. If we are ever going to look at possibly reimplementing 
configuration to use some other mechanism then it will be easier if all 
public uses of the configuration classes was through the interface class.