fileselector plugin

Roland Krause rokrau at
Wed Aug 22 15:24:01 UTC 2001

I think it is not a good idea to make kdebase a requirement for
kdevelop. The parts of kate that are essential for us (an improved
kwrite/ktexteditor part) should move into kdelibs where they belong. 
kate itself can then stay in kdebase. 
Additionally, the kate fileselector window is quite impractical 9my
opinion only), but I have heard that konqui's treeview is being made
into a kpart and _that_ could be a real interesting kpart to use since
it would allow real file operations. Why reinvent the wheel?


--- Ralf Nolden <nolden at> wrote:
> On Tuesday, 21. August 2001 15:01, you wrote:
> > BTW: I think in the long run we (or the kate guys) should make a
> kpart from
> > it so we don't need a complete copy of the  treeview in the Gideon
> > sourcecode. We only need a small wrapper so it looks like a Gideon
> plugin
> > or?
> I still don't know how we can resolve the dependency we have against
> kdebase 
> then. We could make kdebase a requirement for compiling kdevelop, but
> I'm not 
> sure if that is the ultimate solution *is* really a 
> struggling. The only solution I can think of which would be
> reasonable would 
> be to move kate out of kdebase and make it its own module. What's
> Joseph's 
> and Christoph's opinion on that ?
> Ralf
> >
> > Ciao!
> > Sandy
> -- 
> We're not a company, we just produce better code at less costs.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> Ralf Nolden
> nolden at
> The K Desktop Environment The KDevelop Project
> -
> to unsubscribe from this list send an email to
> kdevelop-devel-request at with the following body:
> unsubscribe »your-email-address«

Roland Krause
In the garage of life there are mechanics and 
there are drivers. Mechanics wanted!

Do You Yahoo!?
Make international calls for as low as $.04/minute with Yahoo! Messenger

More information about the KDevelop-devel mailing list