why kdelibs?

[Albert Astals Cid]

A Dijous, 28 d'octubre de 2010, Pau Garcia i Quiles va escriure:
> 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

And the difference is?

Albert

> 
> >>> 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)