On Wednesday 28 January 2009 09:33:25 Aaron J. Seigo wrote: > On Wednesday 28 January 2009, Kevin Ottens wrote: > > I somehow assumed this library would end up as some private classes in > > libplasma but perhaps it makes sense to even go for pure Qt API and for > > kdesupport to give it the chance for wider adoption? (actually that'd > > make > > i think it makes sense if plasma isn't going to be the sole point of > contact for Jolie. i figured it'd take a bit longer for that to happen, but > i should learn to stop underestimating the kde community's amazing pace of > movement ;)
OK, I'll make it a goal for Tokamak II then. Now that I think of it, if I ever manage to push Fabrizio to have UPnP support in Jolie I might even use that in Solid at some point. I think I'd prefer having one solution for all our service needs, than talking to Jolie in some cases or some other daemon in some others. Regards. -- Kévin 'ervin' Ottens, http://ervin.ipsquad.net "Ni le maître sans disciple, Ni le disciple sans maître, Ne font reculer l'ignorance."
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
