pid_t or Q_PID?

[David Faure]

On Thursday 14 June 2007, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> >On Thu, Jun 14, 2007 at 08:36:40PM +0200, Christian Ehrlicher wrote:
> >> Ok, I think we should return at least bool so that the caller can
> >> determine if the process was started or not
> >
> >when you check the logs (and read the code carefully :) you'll notice
> >that originally a bool was returned and it was later changed into a pid.
> >the immediate users might have vanished again, but i don't think it is a
> >very clever idea to remove the functionality.
> 
> I think in this case it is.
> 
> What do people want to do with a PID?

It was used for startup notification purposes.
But now I see that it's handled internally in runCommandInternal so indeed there's no
need to propagate the PID up in the API (right, Lubos?)

> Do they want to know if the process started? That's a bool.

Yes, it should be turned (back) to a bool. Doing so now. I'll commit on Monday.

-- 
David Faure, faure at kde.org, sponsored by Trolltech to work on KDE,
Konqueror (http://www.konqueror.org), and KOffice (http://www.koffice.org).