[RFC] KConfigBase v KConfig

[Thomas Braxton]

On Friday 04 November 2005 07:13 am, Stephan Kulow wrote:
> I sure hope we will change all public uses to KConfigGroup and leave the
> kconfig objects to some setup functions - where KConfig usually makes more
> sense.
The only places KConfig should ever show up is where the file is opened, 
everywhere else it should be a KConfigBase.

> If you ask to change every use of KConfig to use KConfigGroup: yes, go for
> it!
>
> Greetings, Stephan
Why would we change to KConfigGroup? I was talking about the classes that have 
a function like KConfig* SomeClass::config(), should return a KConfigBase*.
Or a function like void SomeClass::readSettings(KConfig *config), should pass 
in a KConfigBase*. It could be a pointer to a KConfigGroup or a KConfig 
changed to the correct group, the readSettings function wouldn't care, as 
long as it gets its entries.