kde_file.h vs POSIX headers vs qplatformdefs.h

[Kevin Ottens]

On Thursday 08 August 2013 18:48:36 Aurélien Gâteau wrote:
> Le jeudi 8 août 2013 18:27:00 Kevin Ottens a écrit :
> > In fact that's more my worry with the current introductions of
> > qplatformdefs.h... Maybe we'd be better off using QFile/QFileInfo in most
> > case and use qplatformdefs.h only when there's no other choice. It's more
> > porting work though...
> 
> Porting to QFile/QFileInfo is more readable, but there are higher chances of
> breakage when doing the kind of "brute-force" porting I started. I think it
> should be up to the module maintainer to do such port since he/she can test
> it.

Agreed. That's why I didn't push hard for it in most of the patches I've seen.

> Actually, I am wondering if porting to qplatformdefs is the highest
> priority: the fact we are using POSIX functions right now does not prevent
> splitting, does it?

Clearly kde_file.h has higher priority for the splitting. Now we still need to 
remove those calls because we'd like to get rid of kdewin which exists in part 
for those. If they stay we got most of our frameworks still depending on it on 
windows which would be counter-productive.

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

Sponsored by BlueSystems and KDAB to work on KDE Frameworks
-------------- 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/20130809/290d0b24/attachment.sig>