On Tuesday, September 06, 2011 10:36:22 PM Ingo Klöcker wrote: > Hi all, > > I just want to comment on one thing: > > [14:30:15] <DxSadEagle> steveire: you're basically saying we should > > favor hypothetical Qt developers over actual KDE app developers. > > Apart from the fact (as far as I understood the discussion) that Steve > isn't favoring one over the other but rather trying to give the > hypothetical Qt developer some of the benefits actual KDE app developers > have, I want to make a confession: I am one of those hypothetical Qt > developers. I have used one KDE class in a Qt-only project and to be > able to do so I had to remove quite a lot of code from said KDE class > because I really didn't want a dependency on KGlobal, KConfig, > KStandardDirs, etc. Because of the pain using KDE classes in Qt-only > projects causes I have only used this one class. > > Another class I/we are using comes from the Qxt extension library. This > class could be used out-of-the-box. I wish I could use some of KDE's > great Qt extensions with similar ease. KDE frameworks appears to be the > solution for this. So, I, as one of those not so hypothetical Qt > developers (who happens to be a KDE developer as well, btw), am all for > making the KDE libraries more modular and more easily usable in Qt > projects.
To make it short: you're the perfect developer to help with the modularization work, i.e. making it modular, while keeping in mind to keep it is much as possible source compatible to current kdelibs :-) Alex
