libgoya - possibly in kdelibs ?

Matt Rogers mattr at
Wed Jan 16 15:15:08 GMT 2008

On Jan 16, 2008, at 7:29 AM, Allen Winter wrote:

> On Monday 14 January 2008 17:41:04 Rafael Fernández López wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> I really know we should focus on 4.0.x and stability before  
>> smoking crack
>> for 4.1. Anyway I have been doing some work for the Goya  
>> infraestructure,
>> which is right now at playground/libs. It is kde-independant, and  
>> despite
>> the kDebug() lines only depends on Qt.
>> Since I'm quite new for this kind of things on the project, I  
>> would like to
>> know some things:
>> - Could it be possible to move the library from playground to
>> kdelibs/kdeui/itemviews ?
>> You may be wondering why. Here is my explanation:
>> Goya is a framework for inserting controls into itemviews in a  
>> really easy
>> and fast way. It now supports pushbuttons, comboboxes and only  
>> renders (not
>> editable) line edits. Of course I will add without effort radio  
>> buttons and
>> check boxes. This framework makes hell easy for the delegate to  
>> draw and
>> make it easy to interact with those controls that Goya added (you  
>> can check
>> out the tests at playground/libs/goya/tests). You just can use
>> signals/slots for that.
>> Now that I said the reason of its existence, I can say where it  
>> could be
>> needed: for sure KPluginSelector (kdelibs/kutils) and kuiserver
>> (kdebase/runtime).
>> So, what do you think ? If we don't want it into kdelibs, we would  
>> need to
>> make kdelibs depend in some kind of "goya library", that  
>> distributions
>> should start to deploy (maybe on the meanwhile on kdesupport, if  
>> that makes
>> sense). If we want it on kdelibs, could that be made for 4.1 ? The  
>> code is
>> pretty tested and I think it works quite fine.
> No objections.
> Apidox, techbase tutorials, coding standards (dpointers and all  
> that), etc
> apply :)

I get the impression from your email that you haven't actually looked  
at the module yet. Is that correct? If that is the case, why do you  
not object when you have no idea whether or not the module meets the  
criteria for inclusion to kdelibs?

A quick search reveals that there are no techbase tutorials.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: PGP.sig
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list