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

[Dawit A.]

On Wednesday 14 October 2009 15:07:28 Urs Wolfer wrote:
> On Tuesday 13 October 2009 19:17:50 Michael Howell wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Ok, I think this idea is also okay. One note I have written down before
> already: The namespace should be KdeNetworkIntegration instead of
> KDENetworkIntegration. See [1]. Another example in kdelibs is
> KAboutKdeDialog.

Hmm... then KDEPrivate violates that completely so does KIO. For some reason 
writing Kde instead of KDE looks very very weird to me. Anyhow, we do not even 
need to have that prefix. We can simply call it KIO::NetworkIntegration::blah 
and save developers from typing three extra and unnecessary letters ;)

> And yeah, for BC, you need to do the typedef as Michael suggested (IHMO).

Sorry, but "typedef AccessManager KDENetworkIntegration::AccessManager" will 
not even compile simply because AccessManager does not exist. Perhaps you both 
confused the typdef syntax with the #define one ?? Or maybe I misunderstood 
something here ??