[Kde-hardware-devel] Re: Working together on NM09 support and cleaning Solid::Control

[Lamarque Vieira Souza]

Em Wednesday 18 May 2011, Will Stephenson escreveu:
> (CCing Lamarque and Lukas as it's important that they see this,
> hardware-devel for info)
> 
> I read Lamarque's blog [1] about adding NM09 support.  For the last 2 weeks
> I've been working on NM09 support too [2].  Unfortunately I didn't announce
> this URL because I wanted to have something to show other than words.
> 
> My work consists of
> 
> 1. workspace/solid/networkmanager-0.7 branched as a personal clone
> 1.1 renamed to libnm-qt
> 1.2 made a standalone lib instead of a backend for Solid::Control
> 2. Ported to NM 0.9 DBUS API and removed compatibility code
> 3. Merged in e/b/networkmanagement/solidcontrolfuture classes
> 4. Rename most classes to match NM naming
> 
> and
> 
> 5. Start of porting e/b/networkmanagement to libnm-qt (not yet pushed).
> 
> The reason for 1.* is to allow us to flatten and remove Solid::Control from
> workspace/libs as agreed at the Solid meeting last October.
> 
> This is equivalent to steps 1 through 3 of Lamarque's work.
> 
> It's regrettable that we both started working on the same feature at the
> same time without telling each other so I'd like us to agree on a common
> way to proceed before investing any more development time in this.
> 
> My proposal:
> 1. Branch master as the pre09 branch and copy libs/solid/control and
> backend into it.
> 1.1 Tell downstreams not shipping NM09 to use this
> 2. Remove Solid::Control from workspace
> 3. Merge Lamarque's work into libnm-qt
> 4. Port networkmanagement to libnm-qt
> 5. Remove redundant abstractions
> 6. Remove last kde-isms and push a Qt-only libnm-qt to NM git
> 
> This will give us a clean codebase and end the problem that workspace is
> tied to particular NM releases.
> 
> What do you think?

	I do not think that can be done by KDE SC 4.7.0 without a lot of effort 
and as I said I am busy. I have spent more time than I should have in Plasma 
NM, some things in my life had been postponed to make that happen.

	#1 should be based in nm09 instead of master in my oppinion. In the 
future we will need to branch master to nm08 and move the NM-0.9 code to 
master, but not now.

	PS: I was aware of your work on libqt-nm since last year, but I have not 
seen any news about it since than. I sent an e-mail 
(http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-networkmanager/2011-March/000676.html) with 
copy to you asking about it. Since I did not get an answer and everybody was 
complaining about NM-0.9 support I stepped up to make things happen. Sorry for 
making Solid::Control inflate but I thought that could be done quickly since 
it is an API I and most people commiting to networkmanagement already know.
 
> Will
> 
> [1] http://lamarque-lvs.blogspot.com/2011/05/plasma-nm-nm-09.html
> 
> [2] http://quickgit.kde.org/?p=clones%2Fkde-workspace%2Fwstephens%2Flibnm-
> qt.git&a=summary


-- 
Lamarque V. Souza
http://www.geographicguide.com/brazil.htm
Linux User #57137 - http://counter.li.org/
http://planetkde.org/pt-br
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-hardware-devel/attachments/20110518/1b049d84/attachment.htm