Rework of the outputview interface

[Andreas Pakulat]

On 09.06.07 12:33:31, dukju ahn wrote:
> > Its still relatively easy to provide a simple outputview, see the svn
> > plugin (which I ported already). The QMake Builder is more complex
> > because it needs to generate a separate process for each build and later
> > on remove them again.
> 
> The lost feature I mentioned is about running a process and forgetting  it.

Uhm, right, the owner of the "process class" is moved from the
outputview to the plugin. But I don't see that as a problem.

> I agreed that plugin gained more control on view. I said that view is good.
> The key of my argument was this -- some (utility) class which
> automatically registers itself to outputview and redirect outputs to it.
>
> I'm just suggesting one additional class.

Well, I don't see the need. Its IMHO not enough functionality this class
would have to justify it. All you need to do for the hookup is connect
2-4 signals and 2 calls to the outputview.

Andreas

-- 
If you stand on your head, you will get footprints in your hair.