andersonbruce added a comment.
In D15093#328246 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D15093#328246>, @pino wrote: > In D15093#328241 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D15093#328241>, @andersonbruce wrote: > > > In D15093#327917 <https://phabricator.kde.org/D15093#327917>, @pino wrote: > > > > > note there are still few "not done" comments around (eg using QSpinBox for fwMark) > > > > > > Yes I know, I'll get to the spinbox in the next day or so. I've only been putting it off because I think it is such a bad idea and I hate making something I wrote worse rather than better but I know that I am playing in your house so I need to play by your rules. I'll hold my nose and get to it soon. > > > What you say sounds like you are understanding my notes as "imposing on you" "bad choices", which is definitely not the case. What I note are things based on my experience, and what I read from the patch. > If I see a configuration key which is validated as positive integer, then my conclusion is that it makes sense to use the proper widget for it, i.e. QSpinBox (with proper range). If you think it is not correct, please do explain it! I could be missing anything, or simply knowing better about it is a good idea regardless. > > But please do not play the card of "you are the bad guy imposing things on me", thanks. I'm sorry, I am not trying to paint you as a bad guy here. What I meant to say is that I disagree with you that using a QSpinBox in these cases is a good idea. I just realize that different projects have different design philosophies / standards and that since I am working on your project which I am a newcomer to, that I am going to follow your recommendations even if they disagree with my personal design philosophy because I realize it is important to be consistent across multiple projects of which this is only a tiny piece of just one project. In the case of the spinbox, I personally don't think that they should be used for anything with more than about 100 different steps because, by their nature, they tell the user to use the up and down arrows to change the value. Now you know and I know that you can just type in a value but not everyone does and on a value that can range from 0 to a very large number (in this case 2000000000+) I believe typing in a value makes sense 99.99% of the time and that using a text box tells the user: "Type a number in here" better than a spinbox does. The same is true to a slightly lesser extent for the other two items which have been changed to spinboxes. Also since all of these will almost always not be used, again my personal opinion is that a blank text box conveys that better than sticking a "default" or "automatic" down at the low end of the spinbox range again because not everyone is going to know to type in 0 to get back to "default" if somehow it gets changed. It was late at night when your message about not forgetting about the spinbox (which I hadn't forgotten) came in and it sounded at the time a little like someone saying "I've told you this before, now you have to do this". Obviously this was not your intention and I apologize that I let my frustration get to me a little. Perhaps mistakenly, I have taken most of the 'design' related comments (as opposed to the 'implementation' issues) as being "this is the KDE way of doing things" and since that is a perfectly valid reason for doing things a particular way, I've just said "Okay, I'll do this even though I disagree that it is a good idea" and got a little frustrated about them. Maybe I should have pushed back a little harder on this and other issues I disagreed with. Who knows. It's all water under the bridge now. Again, my apologies. REPOSITORY R116 Plasma Network Management Applet REVISION DETAIL https://phabricator.kde.org/D15093 To: andersonbruce, #plasma, jgrulich, pino Cc: acrouthamel, K900, pino, lbeltrame, ngraham, plasma-devel, ragreen, Pitel, ZrenBot, lesliezhai, ali-mohamed, jensreuterberg, abetts, sebas, apol, mart
