Review Request: Activity ResourceInstance class for API review

[Sebastian Trueg]

> On May 2, 2011, 3:14 p.m., Ivan Čukić wrote:
> > experimental/libkactivities/resourceinstance.h, line 52
> > <http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101273/diff/2/?file=15928#file15928line52>
> >
> >     The thing I don't like about the /empty/ constructor is that the user could thing the class will work if only some props or none are defined.

I agree here. IMHO the default constructor should either take all the required parameters or we need some kind of error handling.


- Sebastian


-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101273/#review3062
-----------------------------------------------------------


On May 2, 2011, 3:11 p.m., Ivan Čukić wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101273/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated May 2, 2011, 3:11 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for Nepomuk and Plasma.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> Desc of the class is in the class apidocs
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   experimental/libkactivities/resourceinstance.h PRE-CREATION 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/101273/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Ivan
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20110502/1e715476/attachment.htm