D10048: [PATCH 2/4] Add refresh widgets if underlying field changes

[Albert Astals Cid]

aacid added inline comments.

INLINE COMMENTS

> aheinecke wrote in document.cpp:1153
> Sure this would be nice but as I understand it this would mean making FormFieldText (or the general FormField) a QObject. As this is public API i shied away from such a solution.
> 
> Should I change the patch to make FormFieldText a QObject with a textChanged signal?

API break is not a problem since i already had to break it recently.

But on the other hand it will probably open a can of works since all the other document signals about forms should probably be formfield signals too, so i'd say i'm leaning towards ntot changing this.

> aheinecke wrote in document.h:1200
> Ok. But if we make the FormField a QObject we won't need it anymore :-)
> 
> Can you answer my question if making FormField a QObject would be ok? That would probably give us the best flexibility for future changes so I would like to do that. :-)

I'm prety sure i answered that, but the answer is not there, i wonder if i was using two different windows to answer and that made one content get lost?

Anyhow,will answer below.

REPOSITORY
  R223 Okular

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D10048

To: aheinecke, #okular
Cc: aacid, michaelweghorn, ngraham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/okular-devel/attachments/20180213/503c76ab/attachment.html>