[kgraphviewer-devel] Re: Many wishes + will to implement them :-)

[Marco Poletti]

2010/11/21 Milian Wolff <mail at milianw.de>:
> On Sunday 21 November 2010 19:05:52 Gaël (aka Kleag) wrote:
>> Le dimanche 21 novembre 2010 18:48:10, vous avez écrit :
>> > 2010/11/21 Gaël (aka Kleag) <kleag at free.fr>:
>> >
>> > 1)
>> > Maintain all the methods both in the widget interface and in the
>> > KPart. (Full source/binary compatibility)
>> >
>> > 2)
>> > Maintain all the methods in the KPart interface, but freedom to modify
>> > the widget interface. (May break code using the widget interface)
>> >
>> > 3)
>> > Never lose any features in both interfaces, but to get the same
>> > features, user code must be adapted.
>> >
>> > If the answer is 1), the MVC improvement probably can't be implemented
>> > on the existing classes. I will need to copy&paste the code into
>> > classes with a different name and then modify it.
>> >
>> > If the answer is 2), I will probably be able to do what I want in the
>> > existing classes.
>> >
>> > If the answer is 3), I will be sure to do all the changes I have in mind.
>>
>> I think it's 3. To my knowledge, only massif-vizualizer and the kdevelop
>> flowchart plugin use the part and only to display graphs without editing
>> features. And they know that the API is not stabilized. Milian can  confirm
>> that I think.
>> I have also another tool with graph editing features (to edit nlp syntactic
>> analysis) but it is not public currently and is not actively developed. So,
>> when I will work on it again I will be able to adapt it to a new API.
>
> As long as you document the required upgrade path I'm ok with that, I'd also
> port ControlFlowGraph plugin for KDevelop.
>
> But since both currently use external .dot files, it should work as-is in the
> future, just a recompile required to care for the BIC changes I'd say.

Sorry, I don't understand.
The first paragraph seems to suggest 3), with some documentation of
the upgrade path.

The second paragraph seems to suggest 1), and that's radically different.
You say "just a recompile required".
Do you mean "follow the upgrade path and then recompile"?

Marco Poletti