Replacing the KIcon type with a factory method and is frameworks a good idea at all?

[Ingo Klöcker]

Hi all,

I just want to comment on one thing:

> [14:30:15] <DxSadEagle> steveire: you're basically saying we should
> favor hypothetical Qt developers over actual KDE app developers.

Apart from the fact (as far as I understood the discussion) that Steve 
isn't favoring one over the other but rather trying to give the 
hypothetical Qt developer some of the benefits actual KDE app developers 
have, I want to make a confession: I am one of those hypothetical Qt 
developers. I have used one KDE class in a Qt-only project and to be 
able to do so I had to remove quite a lot of code from said KDE class 
because I really didn't want a dependency on KGlobal, KConfig, 
KStandardDirs, etc. Because of the pain using KDE classes in Qt-only 
projects causes I have only used this one class.

Another class I/we are using comes from the Qxt extension library. This 
class could be used out-of-the-box. I wish I could use some of KDE's 
great Qt extensions with similar ease. KDE frameworks appears to be the 
solution for this. So, I, as one of those not so hypothetical Qt 
developers (who happens to be a KDE developer as well, btw), am all for 
making the KDE libraries more modular and more easily usable in Qt 
projects.


Regards,
Ingo
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20110906/d004e168/attachment.sig>