Re: [Libreoffice] Trinity Desktop Environment (TDE) desktop integraton for LibreOffice

>  If it's really only class name changes, then it's nothing that a couple
> of
> typedef's or #define's wouldn't solve.

Agreed.
>  I picked a file at random, vcl/unx/kde/salnativewidgets-kde.cxx, compared
> it
> with the TDE file from the patch, and if I ignore type name changes, the
> differences boil down to the attached a.patch, which is 2 changes of less
> than 20 lines in total, for a file that is 70k big. Second random file
> picked, just in case, fpicker/source/unx/kde/kdefilepicker.cxx , is pretty
> much identical (again minus the type name changes).
>
>  In other words, to me it looks like it would have been much less work to
> create the TDE version by something like:
>
> foo-tde.cxx:
> #define BUILDING_TDE
> #define QApplication QTApplication
> ...
> #include "foo-kde.cxx"
>
> foo-kde.cxx:
> ...
> #ifdef BUILDING_TDE // or possibly even better "#if TDE_IS_VERSION( 3,7,0
> )"
> ...
> #endif

Yes, you are are correct here as well.  Now that I have been away from the
problem for a little while I am starting to think this approach is
best--when it does finally come time for KDE3.5.10 to die the combined
integration module can live on, permanently latched into TDE mode.

>  If you start taking care of the KDE3/TDE code, you'll more or less end up
> being the maintainer of it. People occassionally do a build fix or
> similar, I
> rarely do a bugfix when I find the time and/or somebody whines a lot, but
> that's about it I expect.

Yep, quite familiar with this. :-)

>  I would assume that TDE still maintains some kind of backwards
> compatibility[*], so you should generally know whether your changes are

We don't explicitly guarantee it, but the core TDE codebase is large and
stable enough that in practice there is a high degree of backwards
compatibility.

> [*] I still don't see it said anywhere if TDE maintains any API backwards
> compatibility with KDE3 or not. The configure checks in the patch search
> for
> KDE3/Qt3 names, so I would assume the answer is yes. If not, then at least
> that part of the patch is definitely wrong.

The include file names themselves have not been changed at this point;
this is on a to-do wishlist for the project.

Thanks for the input!

Tim