[kdepim-users] Usenet/GMane users and the (lack of) future of KNode

René J.V. Bertin rjvbertin at gmail.com
Thu Feb 18 14:59:12 GMT 2016

On Thursday February 18 2016 14:53:48 Kevin Krammer wrote:

> > Also, KNode doesn't have a huge code-base in terms of
> > number of source files. Which of course doesn't say anything about
> > complexity ...
> There is a reason some of that code still uses Qt3Compat classes, because 
> there were quite some API and behavioral changes between Qt3 and Qt4.

Undoubtedly. I started looking at removing the Qt3Support layer, but quickly concluded this less trivial than I hoped without a good working knowledge of KNode's inner workings. KNode uses (check)list(-item) classes that do have Qt4 equivalents, but ones that apparently require a so-called model-based approach. It didn't occur to me before writing this that I could have checked if the corresponding Qt3Support classes aren't by any chance written on to of "modern" Qt4 classes rather than simply reuse minimally-adapted code from Qt3. That's probably wishful thinking, and reusing that same old code with Qt5 is probably just as unrealistic :)

> I am pretty sure that expiration works on item time stamps, regardless of 
> whether even a client is currently connected, let alone having retrieve said 
> item, let alone showing them.

The configuration pages certainly suggests that.


More information about the kdepim-users mailing list