On Thursday 30 July 2009 21:03:12 Lionel Chauvin wrote: > > 1 - not all standard runners are useful for rekonq -> some kind of > > restricting them would need to be done > > Yes, PowerDevil runner is not very useful for rekonq :)
My idea here is just to define what runners we need and take care of them. No need for a runner configuration dialog > > 2 - this would introduce plugins through a back door -> crashes (trust > > me, I *know* what I'm talking about) Oh my God, I didn't think about this.... let's see what happens.. > > 3 - runners can be /strange/ and from some of them extracting URL > > wouldn't be easy (it would be super-daft if we launch konqueror or > > firefox when the user enters an URL) > > lol, I encountered this problem with KUriFilter in Rekonq yesterday. > > > With all that said, I am still for this idea, and would even volunteer to > > do it. Great! AWESOME! :) This is really fantastic.. > I am studying the bookmark runner and evaluate if it would be difficult to > create an history runner. I have also the idea of opensearch runners. > Combine webshortcuts and opensearch would be great. Before modifying > Rekonq, these runners can be tested with KRunner. Remember these things about the eventual history runner. 1) There is just one about konqueror history :) 2) You need to evaluate eventual QWebHistory integration with KIO classes in trunk (or perhaps not) Good luck! -- Andrea Diamantini, rekonq project WEB: http://rekonq.sourceforge.net IRC: adjam_AT_freenode GPG Fingerprint: 57DE 8E32 7D1A 0E16 AA52 59D8 84F9 3ECD DBF9 730F
_______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
