dfaure closed this revision.
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698
To: dfaure, broulik, mart, vkrause, nicolasfella, aacid, davidedmundson, apol
Cc: apol, kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
apol accepted this revision.
apol added a comment.
This revision is now accepted and ready to land.
+1 Makes sense.
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
BRANCH
kapplicationtrader
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698
To: dfaure, broulik, mart, vkrause, nicolasfella, aacid, davidedmun
aacid added a comment.
For me it can go in, but i'm not really really netiher a Frameworks developer
nor potentially a user of this class, so i'd feel more confortable if someone
else also +1'ed
On the other hand you're the mega-manintainer of everything, so i guess it
can go in :)
REP
dfaure added a comment.
ping?
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698
To: dfaure, broulik, mart, vkrause, nicolasfella, aacid, davidedmundson
Cc: kde-frameworks-devel, LeGast00n, GB_2, michaelh, ngraham, bruns
dfaure updated this revision to Diff 74335.
dfaure added a comment.
improve unittest, let the name match more queries
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698?vs=74334&id=74335
BRANCH
kapplicationtrader
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator
dfaure updated this revision to Diff 74334.
dfaure added a comment.
Port to erase(remove_if), add unittest for OnlyShowIn, which showed
inconsistencies => now removed from results of both methods.
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698?vs=74
broulik added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> dfaure wrote in kapplicationtrader.cpp:87
> Order is very important here, it's the order of preference.
>
> But doesn't erase(remove_if()) preserve order? I thought it did.
cppreference says it does:
> Relative order of the elements that remain
dfaure updated this revision to Diff 74073.
dfaure added a comment.
Improve docu
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698?vs=73890&id=74073
BRANCH
kapplicationtrader
REVISION DETAIL
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698
AFFECTED FILES
aut
dfaure marked 2 inline comments as done.
dfaure added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> dhaumann wrote in kapplicationtrader.cpp:87
> I would prefer the std::erase(std::remove_if(...), ...end()); idiom here.
>
> Assuming the list is a vector this will be much faster, or do you have to
> preser
dhaumann added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> kapplicationtrader.cpp:87
> +KService::List::iterator it = lst.begin();
> +while (it != lst.end()) {
> +KService::Ptr serv = *it;
I would prefer the std::erase(std::remove_if(...), ...end()); idiom here.
Assuming the list is a ve
dfaure updated this revision to Diff 73890.
dfaure marked an inline comment as done.
dfaure added a comment.
Simplify docu for query()
REPOSITORY
R309 KService
CHANGES SINCE LAST UPDATE
https://phabricator.kde.org/D25698?vs=73858&id=73890
BRANCH
kapplicationtrader
REVISION DETAIL
ht
dfaure marked 3 inline comments as done.
dfaure added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> aacid wrote in kapplicationtrader.h:56
> why is it slow? Looking at the code we have to go trhough all apps anyway
> since what we do is erase if returning false, so wouldn't returning true
> actually be fa
aacid added inline comments.
INLINE COMMENTS
> kapplicationtrader.h:56
> + * true for all services, this would return the complete list of all
> + * installed applications (slow).
> + *
why is it slow? Looking at the code we have to go trhough all apps anyway since
what we do is era
dfaure updated this revision to Diff 73858.
dfaure retitled this revision from "New class KApplicationTrader, to replace
KMimeTypeTrader and KServiceTypeTrader" to "New query mechanism for
applications: KApplicationTrader".
dfaure edited the summary of this revision.
dfaure edited the test plan f
14 matches
Mail list logo
