kprocess, kpty & kdesu

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 11:47:08PM +0200, Simon Hausmann wrote:
> > look for setUsePty and then think about how using bare kpty (that
> > is, even less than old kprocess offers) with qprocess would look
> > like.
> 
> Ok, I agree that even those few applications that need ptys should be
> able to use a simple API. How about KTerminalProcess then?
>
KPtyProcess would fit sufficiently well, if you ask me. ;)

> Or KUnixProcess? Just a slightly different name to stress that the
> fact this is not mean for applications portable to Windows.
> 
you trolls are a bit paranoid about non-portable apis, huh? ;)
why should somebody be upset if a generic class supports system-specific
extensions? this lowest-common-denominator approach sucks outright - we
agreed on that for the application level and it would be silly not to
reflect it in the apis.

> Anyway, I think I've said all I can and we risk running in circles. It
> was an interesting thread for sure and this is my last mail to it :)
> 
oh, no, not that fast, dude. you shot down kprocess with kpty
integration and a generic wrapper for character devices (btw, i strongly
support deleting QFile - i see no reason why block devices should get
any kind of advantage), but left sufficiently many points from the
original mail unsanswered and provided no alternatives to the killed
ideas.

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.