On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 20:52:14 Marco Martin wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 June 2013 16:00:18 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:59:28 Ivan ÄukiÄ wrote:
> > > I'll stop my ramblings, any thoughts?
> >
> > The shell is the only thing that will actually require this complexit
On Wednesday 12 June 2013 16:00:18 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:59:28 Ivan ÄukiÄ wrote:
> > I'll stop my ramblings, any thoughts?
>
> The shell is the only thing that will actually require this complexity, yes?
> If so, we can put this into the plasma-device shell itsel
> The shell is the only thing that will actually require this complexity, yes?
> If so, we can put this into the plasma-device shell itself; it does not
> need to be re-usable outside of plasma-device (until such time as we find
> other use cases for it).
Aren't we supposed to have only plasma-sh
On Wednesday, June 12, 2013 12:59:28 Ivan ÄukiÄ wrote:
> I'll stop my ramblings, any thoughts?
The shell is the only thing that will actually require this complexity, yes?
If so, we can put this into the plasma-device shell itself; it does not need
to be re-usable outside of plasma-device (unt
Hi all,
I've been investigating a few approaches regarding the way we could define the
rules for when a component should be loaded (for example: virtual keyboard <-
no real keyboard, desktop shell <- mouse and keyboard and a nice screen,
netbook shell <- m&k and a small screen etc.*)
At first,
