ngraham added a comment.
Is this logic correct? Just because we found any entries, we don't use DNSSD?
Is there ever a case where we found some entries but might find even more by
using DNSSD?
Also, I want to compliment your code. It's so nice and clean and well
commented.
INLINE COMMENTS
> kio_smb.h:282
> bool workaroundEEXIST(const int errNum) const;
> + void listDNNSD(UDSEntry &udsentry, const QUrl &url, const uint
> direntCount);
>
Shouldn't this be `listDNSSD`?
> kio_smb_browse.cpp:459
>
> + listDNNSD(udsentry, url, direntCount);
> +
Shouldn't this be `listDNSSD`?
> kio_smb_browse.cpp:504
>
> +void SMBSlave::listDNNSD(UDSEntry &udsentry, const QUrl &url, const uint
> direntCount)
> +{
Shouldn't this be `listDNSSD`?
> kio_smb_browse.cpp:508
> +
> + // This entire method act as fallback logic iff SMB discovery is not
> working
> + // (for example when using a protocol version that doesn't have
> discovery).
iff -> if
REPOSITORY
R320 KIO Extras
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D16299
To: sitter, #frameworks, #dolphin
Cc: alexde, bcooksley, ngraham, kde-frameworks-devel, kfm-devel, sourabhboss,
feverfew, michaelh, spoorun, navarromorales, firef, andrebarros, bruns,
emmanuelp, mikesomov
