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

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:36:22 PM Ingo Klöcker wrote:
> 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.

To make it short: you're the perfect developer to help with the modularization 
work, i.e. making it modular, while keeping in mind to keep it is much as 
possible source compatible to current kdelibs :-)

Alex