Review Request: Port t-i-d to Nepomuk::Query + bonus fixes

Sebastian Trüg trueg at
Sun May 9 20:59:02 CEST 2010

On 05/09/2010 08:31 PM, Dario Freddi wrote:
>> On 2010-05-09 18:24:25, Sebastian Trueg wrote:
>>> /trunk/playground/network/telepathy-integration-daemon/telepathyaccount.cpp, line 137
>>> <>
>>>     You know what? Why didn't we make the QueryServiceClient::syncXXX methods static? IMHO that would fit perfectly.
> Now, that's a good point. Do you want me to take care of that?

Yes, please.

>> On 2010-05-09 18:24:25, Sebastian Trueg wrote:
>>> /trunk/playground/network/telepathy-integration-daemon/telepathycontact.cpp, line 161
>>> <>
>>>     Again not really related to the review request: do you think it is good to have Soprano::Node for the additional bindings or should it rather be Nepomuk::Variant?
> Probably a Variant would be better. From my point of view, one should be able to create a resource (like a IMAccount in this case) just by passing the additionalBinding to the constructor.

That is not the case with a Soprano::Node and also not with a Variant.
In both cases you need to call another method. But maybe Variant is more
in sync with the rest of the Nepomuk API which tries to hide as much
Soprano as possible...

Will take care of that tomorrow.


More information about the KDE-Telepathy mailing list