KConfig vs. QSettings (was Re: Porting problems with KMainWindow::readProperties())

[Paolo Capriotti]

On 3/1/07, Michael Pyne <mpyne at purinchu.net> wrote:
>
> If you put that much work into Settings for your own software then it's not
> wasted effort.
>
> If you put that much work into Settings just in the hopes that it would
> replace KConfig then you probably should have mailed -core-devel first so we
> could have steered you off that course.

I created Settings because KConfig didn't have the required features
for my own project.
When I noticed that some other people were complaining about the lack
of those very features, I thought that my work could be useful for
them like it's been for me, hence my proposal.
Hacking KConfig to add those features seems to me like a worthless
duplication of effort, and considering that it was not designed with
those things in mind makes me think that it's bound to be a suboptimal
solution.

On 3/1/07, Thiago Macieira <thiago at kde.org> wrote:
>
> This whole thread is about considering it. We want to have its features in
> KConfig.

I meant that you didn't try it nor looked at the examples. If you
don't want a massive port we can work around it (add a legacy
interface to the class and renaming it KConfigGroup, for example).
What hurts me is that it seems that you automatically thought that it
wasn't worth the trouble to actually take a look at this alternative
solution.
No problem, though. I understand your point and I'll try to work on
KConfig to add those missing features.

Paolo