kdeui splitup (widgets)

[Kevin Ottens]

On Sunday 29 April 2012 15:01:51 David Faure wrote:
> On Sunday 29 April 2012 13:24:43 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > for independent reusable widgets, such as:
> > > KSeparator, KHBox/KVBox, KLed, KArrowButton, KCapacityBar (if the
> > > dependencies on kcolorscheme and kstyle can be sorted out),
> > > KButtonGroup,
> > > KNumInput, KRuler, KXYSelector, KSqueezedTextLabel (until this goes into
> > > Qt itself), KTitleWidget.
> > > 
> > > Hmm, I was hoping the list would be longer, but many widgets have a
> > > dependency on KIconLoader, or KColorScheme, or KCalendarSystem (might be
> > > fixed by Qt5, don't know),
> > 
> > Yes, I had the same conclusion, which is why I didn't create the
> > kwidgetsaddons framework already.
> 
> I think we should just go ahead with it.

Yes definitely. We completely let kdeui in the way and kill all momentum we 
gained so far. :-/

> > That said, we have the kplotwidget
> > framework which has only one widget (I still think it's silly), so why
> > not?
> 
> 4 public classes, not just one. But this is unrelated anyway.

Exactly.
 
> > > * and kwidgets, for the "bigger" stuff,
> > > KLineEdit [advanced completion
> > > support], KComboBox [ditto],
> > 
> > Maybe a completion framework makes sense? Would such a thing be useful
> > outside of 'KDE applications'? Why do we need a separate completion
> > framework? Is the one in Qt fixable/extendable?
> 
> Depends. Do you want KF5 to go out in 2012, or in 2015?
> 
> I think at some point we have to draw a line and just "keep what we have,
> until further notice". There is a LOT of functionality in
> KLineEdit/KComboBox/KCompletionPopup, which would take immense efforts to
> put into Qt, given our current pace of progress.

+1

> [...]
> But I agree about "no need for 10 frameworks".
> I'm just saying "all that stuff that only depends on kconfig and kcoreaddons
> can go into kwidgets, it will help making it and keeping it modular".
> In fact, you call it kde-ui-integration, I call it kwidgets, but we're
> talking about the exact same contents, so we agree, don't we?

You're probably right that somehow the big "kwidgets" we're talking about here 
should indeed be our mythical "Tier 4 Look & Feel/Consistency/Integration/kde-
ui-integration" framework. We suspected would appear at some point (the idea 
during Platform 11 was that it'd contain "whatever is left inside kdeui once 
the rest moved").

It'd make sense somehow, most of our integration points to make "a KDE app 
behave like a KDE app" are rather complex widgets.

If we agree on that we can go ahead with a kwidgetsaddons containing the self-
contained widgets as you mentionned, and this tier 4 rather quickly I think. 
This tier 4 being the highest in the food chain none of its dependencies 
should be a problem.

Do I make sense?

Regards.
-- 
Kévin Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net

KDAB - proud patron of KDE, http://www.kdab.com
-------------- 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-frameworks-devel/attachments/20120503/02620116/attachment.sig>