KNotificationItem class name is confusing

[Aurélien Gâteau]

Marco Martin a écrit :
> On Thursday 29 October 2009, Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
>> Aaron J. Seigo a écrit :
>>> for instance, the whole message indicator plasmoid you wrote could be
>>> completely, 100% implemented using KNotificationItems with associated
>>> KNotifications used for the sporadic/temporal events.
>> This is a bit off-topic, but I would like to ensure I get it correctly.
>>
>> There would be one KNotificationItem per app (== server in Message
>> Indicator (MI) speak), and each indicator would be represented by a
>> KNotification? This would mean a KNotificationItem contains
>> KNotification instances?
>> How would you assign a KNotification to a particular KNotificationItem?
>> How would you represent concepts such as indicator count or indicator time?
> 
> an application in theory can have more than one notificationitem, but the 
> usual case is one, yes
> the idea is to associate globally to the KNotifications of an app a 
> KNotificationItem (that can be the only one, usually), then when a 
> notification of an app pops up it can automatically set the status of the 
> notificationitem to requestingattention
> a next step can be making the notificationitem to know all the notifications
> in this way it will be possible to show only notifications associated to a 
> particular app, for instance instant messaging, so here we have also the 
> knowledge about how many messages there are and when.
> 
> A way, perhaps, once KNotification has a default knotificationitem set 
> globally a KNotification could add itself to that kni upon creation. then what 
> would be need is a way to display -only- those notifications

OK, so Message Indicator could be implemented using KNotificationItem,
but it would require significant changes.

> since a name of the main thing implies also the names of the two other 
> components, the set could be:
> -KStatusItem, with StatusItem dbus interface
> -StatusHost
> -StatusWatcher
> 
> StatusHost and StatusWatcher could even become StatusItemWatcher and 
> StatusItemHost, to make clear they are part of the same thing

Sounds good to me. As I said, I would like to help making the necessary
changes. I should have some time tomorrow to help if you are available.

Aurélien