Future of teamwork plugin

[Matt Rogers]

On Jul 3, 2007, at 5:38 PM, David Nolden wrote:

> Am Dienstag, 3. Juli 2007 22:43:02 schrieb Andreas Pakulat:
>> stable != not crashing, but I think you're aware of that.
> Of course I know that. That's why I added the "not crashing".
>
>> It is dead code and I think one of the issues we wanted to avoid in
>> KDevelop4 is carrying dead code around. What is so bad about  
>> moving the
>> plugin to a (quite popular) place in playground?
>
> Dead code is relative.. just because noone works on something for  
> half a year
> doesn't mean it's dead, else kdevelop-3.4 would be 90% dead since  
> years.
>
>> Its not in a working state right now, except on your and my  
>> system. That
>> is it doesn't compile against boost 1.33.1. Its also in a non-working
>> state on at least 1 platform other than linux and yes IMHO that  
>> counts
>> wether KDE4/win32 happens for 4.0 or for 4.1.
>
> It does compile with boost 1.33.1, that's what I developed it with.  
> You're
> maybe referring to a problem with the ubuntu feisty boost-packages,  
> they are
> broken(dapper worked, and gutsy works too, that's why I had to  
> upgrade).
>
> It also doesn't compile with amd64 because of a bug in boost(cannot  
> serialize
> 64-bit integers on 64-bit systems). But that can be workarounded  
> easily.
> Stays windows..
>
> mathieu:
>> "the only future I can see for this plugin is a rewrite ... I  
>> don't know
> about it but maybe also a redesign ... "
>
> Rewrite, redesign? What exactly is wrong about the design? Imo, the  
> design of
> the networking-library is great, I'm proud of it. It is easy,  
> multithreaded,
> safe, powerful. I wouldn't do it different now, except that I'd use  
> qt.
>
> Your statement shows that you haven't understood anything about the  
> design.
>
> That's probably my fault. I've created a imo good system, but  
> probably missed
> out documenting it enough for others to think the same about it.  
> The whole
> thing may be a little messy in some places, but mostly It's good in my
> opinion. I've used advanced features of C++ to make the code  
> cleaner and
> safer.
> It may need a little time to understand some of the things, but  
> once you did,
> you would see how cool it is. I do not have the feeling that anyone  
> really
> tried understanding the stuff and maybe even learn some new  
> concepts, but
> instead just start yelling as soon as they see something that does  
> not look
> like the usual kde/qt code.
>
> However, since noone likes it, you can move it into playground Adreas.
>
> greetings, David

No, sorry, I won't let anybody cave in to such pressure from people  
who won't take the time to learn the advanced features of C++ that  
the plugin uses. The plugin stays where it is for now. We'll come  
back and reevaluate it at a later date, when we're ready for a release.
--
Matt