Hi all,
I would like to propose an IRC meeting for planning next steps in development.
basically everybody that cares about the desktop, active, general ui, look and
feel..
basically everybody would be involved, no excuses whatsoever ;)
topics:
* Plasma desktop in 4.10 plans? (tagert applets to
> one thing i'm not a fan of with the new Consumer approach is that it is
> impossible to know whether the code will block or not. it does a pre-fetch
> and then cleverly blocks only if it hasn't received a reply yet. which
> means there is no way to guarantee async behaviour when desired. as long
On Tuesday, September 4, 2012 11:28:22 Ivan ÄukiÄ wrote:
> I don't like the idea of having a simple requests like activity list
> or info with async api. This would be quite imitating for simple
> clients like loopless kio_activities, or file item plugin. It would be
> nicer to have something lik
On Tuesday 04 September 2012, Ivan Čukić wrote:
> > attempts to provide synchronous access. perhaps it would be better to
> > just drop the pretense of synchronicity in the API?
>
> I don't like the idea of having a simple requests like activity list
> or info with async api. This would be quite i
> sounds a lot less maintainable and in the long run less re-usable. i also
I agree, after some investigation, shared memory is a bit tedious to work with.
> wonder if using shared memory wouldn't simply move, rather than remove, lock
> contention for data population, etc.
There /would/ be less
On Monday, September 3, 2012 09:26:27 Ivan ÄukiÄ wrote:
> What do you think of the idea to go one step further, and instead of
> accessing the data via d-bus, to only use d-bus for signalling the changes,
> but to use QSharedMemory for actual data access (read-only from the
> library).
sounds a
