>Hi, as I claimed just now on the neighbor thread, I'm working on >the move >tdehwlib out of tdecore. >why so: >1. it provides specific functionality. >2. Only few apps are using it. >3. It's not integrated into tdecore except of couple unnecessary >and ugly >hacks to KInstace. >4. It's code is too robust while it's located in a single file. > >What changes are introduced: >1. TDEHW namespace for all exported classes. >2. Some specific macros. >3. Move includes to tdehw directory. >4. Strip TDE prefix from classes and file names. > >What is already done: >1-4. >5. Split tdehardwaredevices.{h,cpp} into several headers >6. repair tdebase according to the changes > >What is to be done before merging the changes: >1. Repair any other modules. (Is there any?) >2. Some repair is needed to tdenetworkconnections.{cpp,h} and to >modules >which use it. >3. Testing. > >Further plans: >1. Introduce the backend framework. On first stage in the most >basic way. >2. Split tdenetworkconnections.cpp in the same way it was done for >tdehardwaredevices. > >The repositories are here: >https://github.com/Fat-Zer/tdelibs.git >https://github.com/Fat-Zer/tdebase.git >See libtdehw branch. >!WARNING! It supposed to be built and work but my be broken in >some options. > >Some questions: >Is there any ather modules outside tdebase which use tdehw? >Is there anything what uses tdenetworkconnections? >Any other thoughts? I don't pretend to understand the programming reasons cited above. Yet seems to me this topic needs to be discussed here. I've probably done the most user testing with Tim. I've been using GIT pre-R14 for many months and I am not seeing any serious problems with tdehwlib. Whether the sources need to be moved to a separate module ultimately gets decided by Tim as he is the owner of that code. Even if Tim wants to move tdehwlib to a separate module, I vote not to do that until after R14.0.0 is officialy released. Simply because we have enough on our plate right now to get R14.0.0 out the door. Although we are planning regular maintenance updates for R14.0.0 (R14.0.1, R14.0.2, etc.), ABI changes mean a bump in the second part of the version number: R14.1.0. There is no reason we can't do that as long as there is consensus that is what we want to do. Just my two cents. :-) Darrell