why kdelibs?

Pau Garcia i Quiles pgquiles at elpauer.org
Thu Oct 28 21:00:02 BST 2010

On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Pau Garcia i Quiles
<pgquiles at elpauer.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 9:22 PM, Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de> wrote:
>> Pau Garcia i Quiles, 28.10.2010:
>>> On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:53 PM, Matt Williams <lists at milliams.com> wrote:
>>> > Especially with the recent news of Qt breaking apart into smaller
>>> > projects (http://labs.qt.nokia.com/2010/10/26/qt-is-going-modular/) I
>>> > think there's a place for a few smaller KDE libraries to fit into the
>>> > picture shown in that blog post (somewhere near "Other Qt solutions").
>>> > While, of course, keeping rocking with our wonderfully integrated
>>> > desktop environment.
>>> Agreed.
>>> In addition to that, I wonder if all the stuff in kdelibs should
>>> really be in kdelibs.
>>> There are a *ton* of classes in kdelibs. Although I have not performed
>>> any checking, I'd say a good number of them are only used by 2 or 3
>>> applications (which is OK by the current policy: you have 2 users for
>>> your class, it's in for kdelibs). Maybe a class should have at least
>>> 10 or 15 users to get in kdelibs, and specialized classes, with a
>>> narrow scope, should be in other libraries.
>> I disagree. This does not solve the problem, which is: It's not modular
>> enough. I mean if it would be in kdebase, then one would require that. Look at
>> e.g. KDevelop requiring kdebase since noone is moving the "pick process"
>> widget from afaik ksysguard into kdelibs even though kdevelop, scintilla,
>> ksysguard and I think others as well are using that.
>> It's not like there is a "ksysguard" library. You link against kdebase which
>> again is a big bunch of stuff.
> That's exactly what I'm proposing: instead of requiring kdebase, have
> a ksysguard library, even if atm it only contains the 'pick process'
> widget.
> My proposal (for the future) is this: let's have many libraries, with
> as less ties among them as possible. For instance, why can't we have
> the units library, the kholidays library, etc as entirely standalone
> libraries, with minimum ties to anything else?

When I say "library", think of "module", actually

>>> I'd dare to say there are
>>> classes in kdelibs which do not have a single user these days but
>>> noone removed them!
>> You cannot without breaking BC/SC.
> Yeah
> --
> Pau Garcia i Quiles
> http://www.elpauer.org
> (Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)

Pau Garcia i Quiles
(Due to my workload, I may need 10 days to answer)

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list