Regarding these: On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 9:39 PM, Alexis Ménard<men...@kde.org> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 4, 2009 at 7:16 PM, Aaron J. Seigo <ase...@kde.org> wrote: >> can we just extend Plasma::Animator with the new methods and deprecate all >> the >> old stuff? >> >> to keep the implementation from becoming mixed up with all the old crufty >> stuff, we could move the current animator.cpp somewhere else >> (deprecated/animator.cpp? private/animator.cpp?) and name the new, fresh >> and >> happy implementation file animator.cpp. > > Yep as soon as the old stuff is properly documented as obslelete and you > hide it deeply in the h file, that's how we do in Qt. > Having a new file can be better if the choice is possible. >> >> the other option would be AnimationFactory, but then things gets confusing >> in libplasma imho. i'd much rather just retro-fit Animation. > > > I really like the factory concept : give me blur animation object which i > can set-up and put into groups if needed...
So, I've been thinking, and I'm a little confused. Do we: 1) Move the old animator.cpp into deprecated/ and create a whole new animator.cpp with a whole new Plasma::Animator? If so, how is this "extend Plasma::Animator"? 2) Move the old animator.cpp into deprecated/ and extend it in the new animator.cpp? Then, this doesn't solve the naming issue(We still have to use a different name, not "Animator"), and it isn't "retro-fitting Animation". 3) Something else that I didn't quite get? -- ~ mali (http://constant.inople.net/) _______________________________________________ Plasma-devel mailing list Plasma-devel@kde.org https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/plasma-devel
