On Wednesday 19 December 2012 Dec, C. Boemann wrote: > On Wednesday 19 December 2012 13:26:33 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > > On 19 December 2012 13:19, C. Boemann <c...@boemann.dk> wrote: > > > On Wednesday 19 December 2012 13:11:51 Jaroslaw Staniek wrote: > > >> On 19 December 2012 12:59, C. Boemann <c...@boemann.dk> wrote: > > >> > Yes i'm not attached to alpine in any way. I couldn't come up with a > > >> > generic name that describes the library very well ( and no flaketools > > >> > doesn't unless we wan to have many such similarly named libraries) and > > >> > so when i wrote the mail that was just a codename that sprung to mind. > > >> > > >> After re-reading your initial post, how about: basictools or > > >> generictools? > > > > > > but since it may grow to hold shapes and dockers too i would find > > > something named tools misleading > > > > APIs for tools, shapes and dockers are defined in libflake, right? So > > how about basicflake or basicflakes? > i was toying with flakebasics but was scared it might sound like something > flake > depended on > > now with basicflakes it's much better
Well, flake would depend on this library, wouldn't it? I'd call it flakebase. Btw, I tried the distribute-the-widgets idea this morning, and it turns out that most of the stuff would get into koodf, which isn't that good an idea. I thought I could put most into komain, with only some things in flake, kotext and koodf, but it doesn't work that way because the shadow thingy (for instance) uses a lot of kowidgets widgets. That problem would still occur when moving those widgets to flake. -- Boudewijn Rempt http://www.valdyas.org, http://www.krita.org, http://www.boudewijnrempt.nl _______________________________________________ calligra-devel mailing list calligra-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/calligra-devel
