On Sun, Jan 21, 2018 at 1:30 PM, Jan Mulder <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 21-01-18 12:50, Tomaz Canabrava wrote: > >> This is something that I didn't wanted to do since the beginning. >> our models *should* be both desktop and mobile compatible (with the >> exception of the dive list because of the way QT handles Tree Views) >> > > I agree with that (models *should* be both desktop and mobile compatible). > However, when checking the current code base, we see that we only have 2 > models that are used both in mobile and desktop, and the rest is used > exclusively only on mobile (3 models) or only in desktop (18! models). And > as there is no reason to link in any unused code, just do not link those 18 > desktop only models to the mobile app. > there's also no reason to duplicate code, I prefer to have a bit of unused code in both platforms than to duplicate stuff - also this means less code to maintain, and usually less bugs. > if there's a mobile specific model, we should try to look if it's not a >> mistake and if a corresponding model already exists doing the exact same >> thing, and only have one model for each thing. >> > > Also true, but we could ask the same question for "why desktop specific > model". In numerous cases it is valid to have desktop only models, as there > is much more functionality in the desktop than in the mobile app. > that code increase is not so big to matter, I think > --jan >
_______________________________________________ subsurface mailing list [email protected] http://lists.subsurface-divelog.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/subsurface
