On Thursday 10 February 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> Em quinta-feira, 10 de fevereiro de 2011, às 12:45:58, David Faure escreveu:
> > > I certainly don't expect it to continue
> > > running in the background until certain services finish running, in the
> > > background.
> >
> > I can tell you,
Em domingo, 13 de fevereiro de 2011, às 07:44:22, Aaron J. Seigo escreveu:
> that is easily provably wrong: KDE apps are also Qt apps, they don't require
> a window to display its progress and therefore refcounting is needed. i can
> trivially write a Qt app that uses the notification dbus service
> I agree, as long as the reference count is tied to the window count.
> People
> should understand that a GUI application running with no GUI makes no
> sense
> and should be avoided.
RSIBreak has no GUI, only a stats window and a config window. It only has a
tray icon. Probably the famous excep
On Monday 14 February 2011, Tom Albers wrote:
> > I agree, as long as the reference count is tied to the window count.
> > People
> > should understand that a GUI application running with no GUI makes no
> > sense
> > and should be avoided.
>
> RSIBreak has no GUI, only a stats window and a config
Em segunda-feira, 14 de fevereiro de 2011, às 12:16:08, David Faure escreveu:
> On Monday 14 February 2011, Tom Albers wrote:
> > > I agree, as long as the reference count is tied to the window count.
> > > People
> > > should understand that a GUI application running with no GUI makes
> > > no
> >
On Monday 14 February 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> What I don't want is an app that has no way for me to quit it, other than
> opening a shell and killing it (or the amazing ksysguard).
>
> My pet peeve with this issue is kmail 1.x that used to close its window
> when I Ctrl+Q'ed it and then con
On Monday 14 February 2011, David Faure wrote:
> On Monday 14 February 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > What I don't want is an app that has no way for me to quit it, other than
> > opening a shell and killing it (or the amazing ksysguard).
> >
> > My pet peeve with this issue is kmail 1.x that us
On Monday, February 14, 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> I agree, as long as the reference count is tied to the window count. People
> should understand that a GUI application running with no GUI makes no sense
> and should be avoided.
agreed; so just to be painfully clear (it's a monday morning he
On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 09:11:28 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Monday, February 14, 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > I agree, as long as the reference count is tied to the window count.
> > People should understand that a GUI application running with no GUI
> > makes no sense and should be a
On Monday 14 February 2011, David Faure wrote:
> On Thursday 10 February 2011, Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > Em quinta-feira, 10 de fevereiro de 2011, às 12:45:58, David Faure
escreveu:
> > > > I certainly don't expect it to continue
> > > > running in the background until certain services finish
> >
Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 9, 2011, Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> http://techbase.kde.org/Projects/KDELibsModifications
>
> good to see people thinking about these things. however:
>
> this page belongs on commuity.kde.org. it's already linked from here:
>
> http://community.kde.o
Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Thursday, February 10, 2011 16:35:20 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> > On Thursday, 10 de February de 2011 21:08:05 Stephen Kelly wrote:
>> >> Thiago Macieira wrote:
>> >> > It should have been in a qglobalstatic_p.h. We might even do that --
>> >> > and
On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 23:46:55 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> What I was getting at was really just that if the recommendation is to use
> K_GLOBAL_STATIC, but then QBasicAtomicPointer gets moved to some _p.h file,
> that is screwed too. Then using K_GLOBAL_STATIC is not a good
> recommendation
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 00:12:42 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 23:46:55 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > What I was getting at was really just that if the recommendation is to
> > use K_GLOBAL_STATIC, but then QBasicAtomicPointer gets moved to some
> > _p.h file, that is
Thiago Macieira wrote:
> QBasicAtomicPointer is a base class of the public class QAtomicPointer.
I see. That does make it harder to remove anyway.
On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 18:22:20 Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 00:12:42 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 23:46:55 Stephen Kelly wrote:
> > > What I was getting at was really just that if the recommendation is
> > > to
> > > use K_GLOBAL_ST
On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 00:51:38 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 18:22:20 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > Well to play devil's advocate, is it not possible in theory to make
> > QAtomicPointer derive from QBasicAtomicPointer2 in Qt 4.8, in a way such
> > that users of *only
Am Donnerstag 10 Februar 2011, 23:41:13 schrieb Thiago Macieira:
> On Thursday, 10 de February de 2011 17:11:42 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > I say this as someone who uses QAtomicInt assuming a mode of operation
> > that is not explicitly documented (i.e. it is safe to initialize its
> > memory with 0
On Tuesday, 15 de February de 2011 07:53:15 Rolf Eike Beer wrote:
> Since I have some of these machines: is there any detail on this available
> somewhere? Does this count for HP-UX only or also for Linux?
You can find the info in Qt's source code: src/corelib/arch/qatomic_parisc.h
and src/coreli
On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 20:46:29 Michael Pyne wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 15, 2011 00:51:38 Thiago Macieira wrote:
> > On Monday, 14 de February de 2011 18:22:20 Michael Pyne wrote:
> > > Well to play devil's advocate, is it not possible in theory to make
> > > QAtomicPointer derive fro
20 matches
Mail list logo
