Jump to content

Projects/Nepomuk/Irc meeting nepomuk frameworks: Difference between revisions

From KDE Community Wiki
Trueg (talk | contribs)
Trueg (talk | contribs)
Line 39: Line 39:


=== Libraries ===
=== Libraries ===
====New Libraries====
Which libraries do we want to have in the end?
Which libraries do we want to have in the end?
# nepomukcore - The core libraries which are always installed and everything else depends on
# nepomukcore - The core libraries which are always installed and everything else depends on
Line 47: Line 48:
# nepomukui - UI elements build upon nepomukcore
# nepomukui - UI elements build upon nepomukcore
#* The current kdelibs/nepomuk/utils/searchlineedit.h/.cpp, searchwidget.h/.cpp
#* The current kdelibs/nepomuk/utils/searchlineedit.h/.cpp, searchwidget.h/.cpp
====API to drop===
* For now we drop the facet API and move it to playground since it was forced and is weird

Revision as of 13:16, 29 August 2011

Topic

For KDE 5.0 kdelibs and kde-runtime will be split into several parts/components/repositories in order to be more modular and reach a larger audience. This development is at the moment going on in the frameworks branch of kdelibs. There is basically three groups of repositories:

  1. Tier 1: components which only depend on Qt and no other lib/component from KDE
  2. Tier 2: components which depend on Qt and other libraries from Tier 1.
  3. Tier 3: components which depend on anything

Due to our central runtime parts basically all our components are in Tier 3. The only exception is Soprano which is in Tier 1.

The goal of this meeting is to determine what to do with Nepomuk in KDE 5.

Items of Discussion

  • How do we split libnepomuk for kdelibs 5.0
  • Which parts do we drop (besides the already deprecated API)
  • Which new parts do we introduce (candidate: nepomukdatamanagement) and how do we combine them with existing libs (maybe merge)
  • What do we do with ResourceManager::mainModel()? Do we drop it altogether? Do we introduce an alternative which is purely DBus based? Do we extend the QueryServiceClient to provide better SPARQL result support?
  • We need to move nepomuk-dependent code from KIO to our libs
  • We need to make the rest of KIO independent of Nepomuk. This is mainly the download tracking. David Faure suggested to introduce a DBus signal which one of our services can connect to. Maybe similar to the KDirNotify signals.

Participants

  • Vishesh Handa
  • Artem Serebinsky
  • Sebastian Trueg

Decisions

Git Repositories

Which repositories will we use and which components will they contain. The decision was based on the question of which parts of Nepomuk we want always to be available and which are optional.

  1. nepomuk-core
    • Nepomukserver
    • nepomukservicestub
    • Extension ontologies
    • Core services: Storage/DMS, Query service, Filewatch service, File indexer
    • Core libraries: see below.
  2. nepomuk-ui
    • UI libraries: see below
  3. nepomuk-kde-kio
    • KIO slaves: nepomuksearch, timeline, nepomuk
  4. nepomuk-kde-config-ui
    • nepomukcontroller
    • Nepomuk KCM

Libraries

New Libraries

Which libraries do we want to have in the end?

  1. nepomukcore - The core libraries which are always installed and everything else depends on
    • The current kdelibs/nepomuk/core
    • The current libnepomukquery
    • The current kdelibs/nepomuk/types
    • Nepomuk::formatPropertyValue - maybe rename to propertyToString to indicate that it is the basic formatting method
  2. nepomukui - UI elements build upon nepomukcore
    • The current kdelibs/nepomuk/utils/searchlineedit.h/.cpp, searchwidget.h/.cpp

=API to drop

  • For now we drop the facet API and move it to playground since it was forced and is weird