D28192: WIP: Refactor dictionary runner

[Alexander Lohnau]

alex added inline comments.

INLINE COMMENTS

> sitter wrote in dictionaryrunner_config.cpp:29
> That's an implementation detail though, is it not? From the outside we shouldn't make assumption about what the implementation does unless the documentation says what we can assume.
> Today the baseclass may be useless, in 10 years it may not be.
> 
> Long-winded way of saying that I would leave the base class calls in. If nothing else it's at least better form in terms of API contracts.

That makes sense but one question: The doc says: `...However, if you for some reason reimplement it and also are using KConfigXT, you must call this function`, does this mean we can assume that the base class is not needed?

PS: In this case it is not very relevant but I would like to understand concept for future patches 😃.

REPOSITORY
  R114 Plasma Addons

REVISION DETAIL
  https://phabricator.kde.org/D28192

To: alex, broulik, ngraham, sitter, mlaurent
Cc: plasma-devel, Orage, LeGast00n, The-Feren-OS-Dev, cblack, jraleigh, zachus, fbampaloukas, GB_2, ragreen, ZrenBot, ngraham, himcesjf, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, ahiemstra, mart
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/plasma-devel/attachments/20200406/fa9d87a5/attachment-0001.html>