Refactoring done (was: Strigi refactor)

[Thomas Zander]

On Friday 16 March 2007 10:19, Jos van den Oever wrote:
> Personally, I think it is ok to use the jstreams:: namespace. It makes
> it clear what belongs to the streams and what to the analysis part.

Take a look at;
http://websvn.kde.org/trunk/KDE/kdebase/runtime/kioslave/trash/trashthroughanalyzer.cpp?revision=642668&view=markup

It has 6 references to the jstreams namespace. We use the header files coming 
from strigi, we link to strigi for that code. So, from a coding perspective 
everything is strigi.
Thats not 'ok'.

It makes for hard to understand code as nobody understands you have to open 
the strigi api dox to find these classes.  This means hard to maintain as 
well.
It makes for fragile code.
Clucene has a copy of the classes, and you depend on strigi having an exect 
copy of the code to make it all work.
You said clucene will not change it copy of the classes any other way from 
strigi.  Now, if you did get hold of that one crystal boll and can predict 
the future, we are friends. :) If not we should follow the normal rules of 
maintainable code and that includes minimizing dependencies.

I personally think you should accept this as a problem instead of stating the 
above, and work towards a proper solution.
-- 
Thomas Zander
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20070316/c62c52e2/attachment.sig>