3 Dec 2000 thiagom   » (Journeyer)

I have had some new ideas for the IPv6 implementation in KDE. First and foremost, I thought that maybe I should not try to make it in kdelibs, but in QT. I have seen that KDE and QT duplicate a lot of code and effort, like QSocket and KSocket, QUrl and KURL. So, question is: would we all benefit more from a IPv6-transparently-enabled QSocket or KSocket?

Let me emphasize the word transparent. Both QSocket and KSocket already support IPv6 in a manner or another. But neither implementation is good enough, to the point that KSocket's implementation is practically non-existant. Even if the preprocessor directives were enabled in KSocket, it still wouldn't work.

I am currently aiming to make my work to kdelibs. That is, all the code left behind in QT would be left unused. However, there's (so far) nothing preventing change into QT (read: KSocketAddress and others would fit nicely in QSocketAddress).

Problem with QT is: QSocket would change signature, while KSocket wouldn't necessarily have to.

Latest blog entries     Older blog entries

New Advogato Features

New HTML Parser: The long-awaited libxml2 based HTML parser code is live. It needs further work but already handles most markup better than the original parser.

Keep up with the latest Advogato features by reading the Advogato status blog.

If you're a C programmer with some spare time, take a look at the mod_virgule project page and help us with one of the tasks on the ToDo list!