The remaining issues that didn't change ABI anymore (movable value types, hide private methods/slots inside the private classes, etc) have long since been addressed.
I think there's two possible time slots to actually execute the move to frameworks now: * ASAP, for the June release. * For the July release, just in time for the 20.08 dependency freeze. Opinions? Thanks, Volker On Saturday, 4 April 2020 17:32:19 CEST Volker Krause wrote: > Thanks for the review! We are cutting it close again with the 20.04 > deadline, but fortunately most of these findings aren't ABI-breaking :) > > The result was discussed in more detail at the (virtual) PIM sprint, summary > below for the record. > > On Saturday, 4 April 2020 16:20:21 CEST Kevin Ottens wrote: > > Hello, > > > > On Saturday, 9 November 2019 12:33:54 CEST Volker Krause wrote: > > > during Akademy there was a request to promote KDAV from KDE PIM to > > > Frameworks for use by Plasma Mobile. KDAV is a framework that implements > > > the CalDav/ CardDav/GroupDav protocol on top of KIO's WebDav support. It > > > would be classified as a functional tier 3 framework. > > > > > > So far we have fixed a number of obvious ABI-compatibility issues, > > > removed > > > QtXml[Patterns] usage from the public interface and relicensed GPL parts > > > (apart from a bit of test code) to LGPL. The next step would be a more > > > thorough review to identify changes necessary before becoming a > > > Framework. > > > > > > To avoid the last minute invasive changes we ended up doing for > > > KCalendarCore, I'd propose the following timeline: > > > > > > - identify and implement all necessary changes to the API and ABI until > > > the > > > 20.04 Application release (that includes the still necessary move to the > > > KF5 library namespace). > > > > I'm likely late to the party, but here is what I found by looking at KDAV > > > > master today (first day of the KDE PIM sprint): > > * There's a few private methods or Q_SLOTS that I'd hide completely by > > > > moving them to the d-pointer, for the slots we're using type safe connects > > so they don't even need to be marked as slots at all; > > Cosmetic with no ABI impact, we can do that post 20.04 still. > > > * Is it worth making DavCollection moveable? It's only copyable right > > now; > > Probably yes, that's new API with no ABI break, so we can do that post 20.04 > as well. > > > * We might want to do something about "ctag" in DavCollection it's a bit > > > > obscure as a name (and the API doc doesn't help), also it seems to not be > > an official standard (while being widely supported) and there's the > > sync-token mechanism which has a RFC (RFC6578); > > I have no idea what ctag is (I am only doing the technical work needed to > turn this into a framework, I didn't write this library). > > > * Why isn't DavCollectionModifyJob using DavCollection somehow? (might > > just > > > > be my ignorance but I find it surprising that it is solely based on a > > property mechanism); > > I think this is to be able to control which properties get changed, rather > than sending the full set of them. > > > * DavCollections(Multi)FetchJob has a mysterious "protocol" parameter on > > > > its collectionDiscovered signal, is it really necessary? if it has to > > stay, > > shouldn't be at least documented? or at least a safer type than int? > > Fixed in https://phabricator.kde.org/D28564 and https://phabricator.kde.org/ > D28566 > > > * DavCollectionsMultiFetchJob is inconsistent as it's not using > > Q_DECLARE_PRIVATE; > > That's due to using KJob as a base directly. > > Subsequent discussion suggested this should be a KCompositeJob, David is > taking care of this. > > > * KDAV::Error would benefit from more apidox; > > Yes, not blocked by the 20.04 freeze though. > > > * Is it worth making DavItem moveable? It's only copyable right now; > > See above, same as DavCollection. > > > * Same comment about etag for DavItem than the ctag one for DavCollection > > See above, same as ctag. > > > * I'd be tempted to move all the protected methods of DavJobBase on its > > d- > > > > pointer, the job subclasses would have access to them anyway, it'd make > > sense to put them protected in the header only if we expect subclasses > > outside of the lib (and I doubt this is actually supported); > > ABI impact mitigated by https://phabricator.kde.org/D28562 so we can clean > this up after 20.04. > > > * It needs to decide between Qt smart pointers or STL ones I think, found > > a > > > > bit of both so far (I'd lean toward STL ones but maybe that's just me); > > Also fixed by https://phabricator.kde.org/D28562. > > > * Make DavUrl moveable? > > See above, same as DavCollection and DavItem. > > > * EtagCache probably shouldn't have anything protected, also, why is it a > > > > QObject at all? > > This is why: > https://lxr.kde.org/source/kde/pim/kdepim-runtime/resources/dav/ > resource/akonadietagcache.cpp > > > * Are we sure we want to return a QLatin1String in ProtocolInfo? this > > > > strike me as an odd choice. > > Fixed in https://phabricator.kde.org/D28563. > > > Overall apidox would likely need a big pass of cleanups as well. > > > > I think that's it from me. > > I hope we managed to address everything on short notice that would require > ABI breaks after the 20.04 release (and thus cause a delay of the > frameworks move Volker