On Thursday 17 November 2011 17:14:06 Robin Burchell wrote: > On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 5:11 PM, David Faure <[email protected]> wrote: > > The method already asserts if the path is empty or is ".", we could make > > that stricter to catch more bugs (error instead of debug-mode-only > > assert, and refuse more paths, including the home dir). > > Why does it need to be static at all, as opposed to the API user being > able to explicitly remove the QTemporaryDir they've created > themselves? No room for bugs, or removing the wrong directory.
That's what the non-static remove() is about. But the static removeDir covers other cases, like the ones I mentionned at http://developer.qt.nokia.com/forums/viewthread/9860/P15 : – fixed-named temp dirs as used by unittests for easier debugging. This is very very common in unittests (in both Qt and KDE), and is a good argument for having the method in QTemporaryDir: it is about temp dirs, just not randomly-named ones. – konqueror sessions which are saved on disk as directories. I'm sure there are other similar cases of apps saving internal stuff as directories. Calling these "temporary" might be a bit arguable, but if the general agreement here is that a QDir::removeRecursive would be even worse, then I think this is a good compromise. It makes it clear that it's for app- created dirs (which get deleted at some point, so they are "temporary" in a way), not for user directories (which might be huge and contain lots of important data). -- David Faure | [email protected] | KDE/Qt Senior Software Engineer KDAB (France) S.A.S., a KDAB Group company Tel. France +33 (0)4 90 84 08 53, Sweden (HQ) +46-563-540090 KDAB - Qt Experts - Platform-independent software solutions _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
