vkrause added inline comments. INLINE COMMENTS
> ahmadsamir wrote in jobuidelegate.cpp:365 > Nitpick, wouldn't QLatin1String be better here? > > c.f. Marc Mutz's talk about QStringLiteral and QLatin1String: > https://youtu.be/Ov7s0GgBbOQ?t=2806 sslMetaData is a QMap<QString, ...>, ie. value() has no QLatin1String overload, calling it with a QLatin1String will work but convert to a QString at runtime (involving a memory allocation), using QStringLiteral avoids that. > ahmadsamir wrote in ksslinfodialog.cpp:263 > Nitpick, shouldn't there be a "// static" comment like the other method? > > Wouldn't a QVector be better here (QVector<QList<QSslError::SslError>>)? that > is IIUC what the QList docs and [1] are saying. > > [1]https://marcmutz.wordpress.com/effective-qt/containers/ In theory, yes. However, changing this here and now would trigger quite some ripple effect through the code, which currently is using QList everywhere, so I'd suggest to do that as a separate change (if at all), to not hide security-relevant changes under lots of QList -> QVector porting noise. The other thing to consider the consistency in this code if we change just a single use from QList to QVector, especially if that's not a performance-sensitive path and Qt6 is supposed to change all this anyway (QList's implementation going away). REPOSITORY R241 KIO BRANCH next REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D24980 To: vkrause, nicolasfella Cc: ahmadsamir, nicolasfella, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
