On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:26:52AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > On Friday 10 October 2014 11:18:38 Oswald Buddenhagen wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 10, 2014 at 11:07:52AM +0200, Milian Wolff wrote: > > > may I ask why you don't simply copy KConfig? It's API design has > > > proven to be extremely versatile and efficient over the years. > > > > actually, it has proven horrible and is slated for a rewrite for a > > decade. the only thing it does right is what tomaz copied to his api. > > To my knowledge, only the internals are horrible and could easily be > improved, speed wise. > the api is also horrible. it's full of inconsistencies. it has some specifics that make a clean multi-backend implementation not fully feasible. the c'tor flags for cascading and other features are rather error-prone. also, the duality of KConfig vs. KSharedConfig makes no sense.
on a different matter, what do we do about config change notifications? i tend to a separate class, say: QConfigWatcher::QConfigWatcher(const QConfigGroup &group); Q_SIGNAL changed(const QString &key); then we can postpone the actual design and implementation. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list Development@qt-project.org http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development