KMDI Modes

[Roland Krause]

Hi Chris,

--- Christoph Cullmann <cullmann at babylon2k.de> wrote:

> I don't think we can leave them in, kmdi will be a important libary
> in the
> KDE UI
> framework and therefor should at least stay at some consistent level
> UI wise.
> (if we provide all this modes, any HIG will just be senseless).

I don't understand, what's inconsistent exactly? What is HIG? 

> 
> Beside  this I am not sure if any qt only implementation is wanted,

Yeah, I was afraid of that. I can always maintain my own version forked
from the current (KDE-3.4).

KDE is comparatively bloated when it comes to applications that do not
use it's functionality. Not to be misunderstood, I have been using KDE
for many many years now and advocate it wherever I can, but it still
has extremely slow app startups (especially on RH and in networked
environments) and I would not want to make a commercial app dependent
on it. As I said, if my interests are very orthogonal to the
communities' I am happy to go away and do this on my own. 

> I
> would be more interested in a really more close kde integration using
> the
> whole power of the framework, like correct use of xmlgui and so on.
> As KDE
> 4.x will be (perhaps) available for win32, too (at least the libs), I
> guess this won't be a that large problem as today, if you don't need
> qt
> only. But provide a qt only lib would make it hard or even impossible
> for
> good integration into kde without many ifdefs, making it again close
> to
> unmaintainable.
> 
#ifdefs don't make a code unmaintainable per se but the current kMDI is
pretty messy indeed on could probably use a rewrite in many respects. 

Regards
Roland

> -- 
> Christoph Cullmann
> KDE Developer, kde.org Maintainance Team
> http://www.babylon2k.de, cullmann at kde.org
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today! 
http://my.yahoo.com