I don't think it's possible to get rid of our KDE dependencies. All of them provide us a great bunch of features against their Qt counterparts. So, "removing KDE" is not an option. Considering that this means reimplementing all our peculiar parts. Let's do some exampes:
xmlgui & ktoolbar --> the GUI and the toolbars configurability kwallet --> password management KIO & kcookiejar --> cookies (In the Qt 4.5.x release, the QNetworkCookieJar was not "enough" for a decent browser. Don't know about its state now) KIO --> file download management KUriFilter --> url resolution && webshortcuts KCM --> setting dialogs KBookmarks --> bookmarks management KIO & KDirLister --> file && ftp protocols KParts --> file handling (eg, pdf, video, etc) etc.. The things listed will not work with the s/K/Q sostitution. They have to be reimplemented from scratch. Some of them (eg: xmlgui, KCM) need big changes to let the 2 versions (Qt & KDE based) work together. That said, if someone comes here saying: "we can port in the platform X, the features A, B, C from kdelibs, but porting the feature D, E will cost us too much. Please get rid of them or let them optional" beh, we can talk about.. Regards, 2010/8/26 Markus Slopianka <[email protected]> > I fully agree that Rekonq should concentrate on the KDE Platform and > Desktop first and > then Plasma Netbook. > But after that reducing dependencies may be beneficial for Plasma Mobile > (if rekonq is > ever targeting that at all but since the GUI is already flexible, I think > it'd make > sense). > > > On Thursday 26 August 2010 16:29:23 [email protected] wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 4:16 PM, ext Markus Slopianka wrote: > > > I just had the idea that Rekonq (1.0?) with no/minimized KDE Platform > > > dependencies could be proposed to MeeGo Netbook as default browser > > > instead of current Google Chrome. > > > > I don't think it is a good idea in the short term. We are just starting > to > > work on Netbook, while Google already made improvements. There are cases > > where QtWebKit is faster than Chrome on Desktop, those are generally > > slower on Atom. > > > > Still, I think the question is interesting. How hard do you think it > would > > be to have a version of Rekonq without dependency on KDE? > > > > cheers, > > Benjamin > _______________________________________________ > rekonq mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq >
_______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
