[WebKit-devel] KDE WebKit status update [Remix]

[Michael Howell]

On Tuesday 13 October 2009 09:21:56 Dawit A. wrote:
> Not really... A cookie management application would have no use for the
> AccessManager. The same if you want to integrate with the platform specific
> cookie manager whenever possible  (casuse the Qt version is useless), but
> want to stick with QHttp.
I see your point.

> Well IMO if we want to really make the intent of these classes clear, they
> should be put under a clear namespace, e.g. KDENetworkIntegration.
> 
> namespace KIO
> {
> 
> namespace KDENetworkIntegration
> {
> 
> class AccessManager : public QNetworkAccessManager
> {
> ...
> };
> 
> class CookieJar : public QNetworkCookieJar
> {
> ...
> };
> 
> } // namespace KDENetworkIntegration
> 
> // TODO: Remove KDE 5. BC
> typedef KDENetworkIntegration::AccessManager AccessManager
> 
> } // namespace KIO
> 
> I rather prefer that nested namespace because the sole purpose of the
>  second namespace is to indicate the intent of these classes. It also
>  removes the classes out of the toplevel KIO namespace... Anyhow, I really
>  do not have any preference how this is handled so long as the class is
>  placed in the correct location in the end...
That'd work pretty well. Of course, you'd need to do it in the opposite 
direction (typedef AccessManager KDENetworkIntegration::AccessManager) to 
maintain binary, as well as source, compatibility.

I don't really have a preference how, I'd just like it to be clear that the 
classes go together.

-- 
Please don't send HTML-only mail (if you like, you can use multipart). If you 
forward messages, please clean off the garbage. Thanks! 
Michael Howell 
mhowell123 at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
Url : http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/webkit-devel/attachments/20091013/2c837e3c/attachment.sig