New System Settings

[Michael Jansen]

On Saturday 23 May 2009 02:02:01 Ben Cooksley wrote:

> > You changed the behavious how modules are called. All Modules were
> > developed with the assurance they are never unloaded. All modules were
> > developed with the assurance load is called to reset them. The destructor
> > would only be called if systemsettings was closed.
>
> Sorry, but I can't find the assurance.... not in the KCModule or
> KCModuleProxy documentation.
> When I developed the Device Actions control module I was never made
> aware of this, so it must have been before the KDE 4 era if it
> happened at all.

It probably was not documented but it was the way the code worked.


>
> >> > So is this a valid issue against the new system settings
> >> > or i still should try to catch this bug in the kcm module?
> >>
> >> None of the other modules are affected, so the bug is likely in the KCM.
> >
> > I think you should keep that behaviour. We don't know how many bugs are
> > still
> > out there unnoticed because they don't lead to a crash.
>
> It is impossible to keep the old behaviour, since it will cause
> problems when a user opens a previously opened module after switching
> views. That will lead to two instances of the module being
> instantiated which is even worse, or the module failing to open saying
> "Module already opened in System Settings" except they are in System
> Settings.
>
> If I made it a singleton, then I would have to reparent it as views
> needed it, which would lead to a really nasty crash upon closing
> because the module view would try to destroy the modules ( since they
> would have to be held in a internal list of some description ) except
> the reparented one had already been destroyed by Qt automatically.
> Basically a really nasty can of worms, which will cause unneeded code
> complication.

I'm not in the position or mood to tell you what to do. Your are the one doing 
the coding. I just want to make sure you and everyone else understands the 
implications. We found out one module doesn't like the change. We only found 
out because it crashed. We have no idea how many subtile bugs are left out 
there. Many/Most of the kcm modules are more or less unmaintained like in 
noone really cares/works on them. They are kind of drive by maintained by 
many.

If you say you keep it that way it is currently implemented i would expect you 
to take responsibility for bugs resulting of that. Whatever module is 
affected. I said expect not put it on you. It's up to you to decide. I can't 
tell you what to do. Or would want to do that.

I just fear we get bug reports and noone cares.

Mike