[rekonq] Re: Review Request: A bit of cleanup in Application.

[Benjamin Poulain]

-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100316/#review786
-----------------------------------------------------------


You are gonna kill me. The previous patch was more correct actually :)

I did not notice those objects are parented to the instance of Application. One have to wonder why those methods are static at all.

- Benjamin


On Jan. 8, 2011, 9:51 p.m., Pierre Rossi wrote:
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
> http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100316/
> -----------------------------------------------------------
> 
> (Updated Jan. 8, 2011, 9:51 p.m.)
> 
> 
> Review request for rekonq and Benjamin Poulain.
> 
> 
> Summary
> -------
> 
> I believe we don't need static members in QWeakPointers for all the *Managers, static getter functions would do the job.
> 
> 
> This addresses bug N/A.
>     /show_bug.cgi?id=N/A
> 
> 
> Diffs
> -----
> 
>   src/application.h b30e337 
>   src/application.cpp 466a0a4 
> 
> Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100316/diff
> 
> 
> Testing
> -------
> 
> "compiles and runs" ™
> 
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Pierre
> 
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/rekonq/attachments/20110108/81f079b1/attachment-0001.htm