Merging KAuth into KDELibs

[Dario Freddi]

2009/9/5 Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi at kde.org>

> On Sat, Sep 05, 2009 at 02:52:05PM +0200, Dario Freddi wrote:
> > In data sabato 05 settembre 2009 14:36:47, Oswald Buddenhagen ha
> > scritto:
> > > and on a general note, i *urge* you to think through the issues of
> > > integrating with existing related technologies *before* you push
> > > this stuff.
> >
> > Also, what issue did I not think through?
> >
> dunno. you dismissed KAuthorized as "unmaintained" without further
> comment. if that isn't a reason for concern, then i don't know what is.
>

That mail was actually a mistake. We do (me and Aaron) have plans for
KAuthorized for integration with KAuth that I will explain as soon as we
have a more concrete project and KAuth stuff will be definitely in (we are
discussing CMake macros in this very moment with Alexander)


>
> > If you looked into the code, you would have realized that KAuth lies
> > in a separate namespace, so it's quite unlikely to have stuff
> > conflicting with KAuthorized, which has a completely different scope
> > and functionality.
> >
> have you considered that this is exactly the problem? i can see only two
> options: either you have two totally orthogonal classes/namespaces with
> very similar names (which is just plain bad api), or thought should be
> put into integrating the two (i know that the underlying technologies
> are different, but if it's still just the same thing at two different
> layers, then a common api abstraction might make sense).
>

We could change the namespace to something else, as long as we have a quick
and effective proposal for changing the name. Or even better, merging the
namespaces. What about starting a different thread (this one is pretty
offtopic and cluttered) so we can have more people discussing that?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20090905/82eda58b/attachment.htm>