|
- * Note: Lines starting with a d are my comments - Daniel
- * Note: Lines starting with a # are my comments - Cornelius
- * Note: Lines starting with a "z" are my comments - Zack :)
- * Note: Lines starting with a "s" are my comments - Simon
- * Note: Lines starting with a "Don:" are my comments - Don
- * Note: Lines starting with a "g" are my comments - Guenter
- * Note: Lines starting with a "m" are my comments - Matthias Kretz
- * Note: Lines starting with a "MiB:" are my comments - Michael
- * Note: Lines starting with a "h" are my comments - Holger
-
- Misc:
- =====
-
- Configuration Merge
- -------------------
-
- d Idea: The KOffice way of life: Offer a method that adds a given wiget of a
- d predefined type as page in a KDialogBase or offer a pointer to a KDialogBase
- d -> requires a Kontact part or an external lib per part
-
- m I believe this is a more general problem. Please take a look at
- m tdegraphics/kview/kpreferences{dialog,module}.{h,cpp}. I'd like to generalize
- m these classes and include them into tdelibs (the same configuration merge is
- m being done in Kate, Noatun, Kopete, KView and probably more).
-
- # The problem is even more generic. We also have to merge about boxes, tips of
- # the day and maybe more.
-
-
- Merged Foldertree View
- ----------------------
-
- d Idea: Let the part send a description of their folders and reaction to calls
- d as XML, similar to XMLGUI
-
- # Is a folder tree really the right tool to represent events, todos or
- # contacts?
-
- MiB: On the one hand, Notes can be hierarchic, so a folder tree would be the
- MiB: nearest solution...
-
- z I think so. Applications could send the root of their tree to
- z Kontact so that the interface looks like
-
- - Mail
- | \
- | - Local Folders
- | \
- | Inbox
- | |
- | Thrash
- | |
- | Sent
- - Notes
- | \
- | Notes 1
- | |
- | Notes 2
- |
- - Events
- \
- Event 1
- |
- Event 2
-
- z which is not that bad. The question would be how to render the tree
- z on the Kontact side while keeping the items on the parts side ( because
- z e.g. KMails hold custom pixmaps for the folders which had to be
- z displayed in the Kontact tree).
-
- g I'm currently having 248 events. A tree is a very bad solution to visualize
- g them. selecting "Events" in the tree should just only start the korganizer
- g part.
-
- MiB: ...OTOH... yes, /me agrees with g, a folder tree becomes complex quite fast.
-
- Don: The folder tree makes sense for advanced users, but I think
- Don: the simplicity of the current navigator widget has advantages for
- Don: non power users.
- Don:
- Don: Actually instead of the navigator widget I think it makes sense
- Don: to consider reusing the widget choosing widget in the latest
- Don: version of the Qt designer, which in a sense can be
- Don: considered a generalization of the navigator widget. And could
- Don: make the folder tree in kmail unnecessary.
- Don:
- Don: I might investigate the Qt designer widget further but if someone
- Don: else wants to look at a folder tree widget that's cool with me.
-
- # I had a look at the Qt designer widget choosing widget. I think it has a
- # severe usability problem, because the buttons (or kind of tabs) which are used
- # to access the widget subgroups are not always at the same place but move
- # around when you click on them. Dependening on which group is shown, the button
- # is at the top or at the bottom of the widget. In my opinion this solution is
- # unacceptable.
-
- # But Daniel had a good idea how to improve that. It looks similar to the Qt
- # designer widget, but it opens the current group always at the top of the
- # widget and only highlights the current group in the list at the bottom, but
- # doesn't move it. This seems to also be the way Outlook does it.
-
- Don: Guenter, agree.
- Don: Wouldn't the idea to be to show calendars in the tree or
- Don: navigator widget, rather than individual events?
-
- # Yes, that makes sense. Calendars are much more similar to mail folders than
- # single events. You wouldn't integrate individual mails in the folder tree,
- # would you?
-
- d That raises an interesting point: The KNotes plugin would not need an own
- d canvas in the WidgetStack then. It's sufficient to have the notes in the
- d folder view, an RMB menu on them and a "New Note" action.
- d So the new design must be able to catch that case (the current one does not).
-
- # I think notes are on the same level as mails or events. They should be listed
- # in the view. KNotes would probably just create a single entry in the folder
- # tree.
-
-
- KNotes integration
- ------------------
-
- MiB: Which reminds me of my own concern about the 'how' of integrating KNotes:
- MiB: * the current solution is to start KNotes extern, it is not embedded in Kontact
- MiB: at all. Thus opening a note that is on another desktop either leaves the Kontact
- MiB: window or moves the note. Either not perfect. Also, Kontact is likely to cover
- MiB: notes that reside on the desktop, easy working is impossible. Which is the reason
- MiB: I don't like the current approach too much.
- MiB: * but there's always hope---my idea would be to show the notes in Kontact itself.
- MiB: Now I tend to say it's a bit intrusive to not allow starting KNotes and
- MiB: Kontact/KNotes at the same time which raises the following issues:
- MiB: - if KNotes and Kontact are running at the same time, changes to the notes have
- MiB: to be synchronized (not much of a problem). Changes to be synced are the
- MiB: text/contents itself, the text color/style..., the note color. Not sure about
- MiB: the note size. Not to be synced is the position.
- MiB: - so the position in Kontact has to be saved individually and independently
- MiB: of the real desktop position (realized by attaching two display config
- MiB: files, works in make_it_cool branch mostly). Kontact's size is generally
- MiB: smaller than the desktop.
- MiB: - normally notes are on a specific desktop, now they have to be displayed on one
- MiB: area---how to do this best?
-
- MiB: what does M$ do? How do they manage the notes in their PIM app? (I don't know
- MiB: it, never seen that thing)
-
-
- Toolbar Items
- -------------
-
- d The KParts Technology only provides actions for the current part. It might be
- d desireable to have common actions that are always available.
-
- Don: I agree that it is desireable to have common actions always
- Don: available (and parts too like the todo list)
- Don:
- Don: But are you sure Kparts is limited in this way? KOrganizer can load
- Don: multiple plugins simultaneously. And all of these plugins are tdeparts
- Don: (eg. birthday import), and tdeactions for all loaded plugins are
- Don: created and made available simultaneously.
- Don:
- Don: Yeah, I'm quite positive you can load multiple parts simultaneously.
-
- # Certainly. Actions like "New Mail", "New Contact", "New Event" should be
- # available independently of a selected part.
-
- Don: This is a very important issue, I think we need a library with three
- Don: methods:
- Don: KAddressBookIface loadKAddressBook()
- Don: KMailIface loadKMail()
- Don: KOrganizerIface loadKOrganizer()
- MiB: And don't forget KNotesIface loadKNotes() :-)
-
- h: That doesn't sound extendable ;)
- h: So if I would like to add a 'New ShortMessage' part we would have to extend
- h: that library... better use TDETrader and some sort of a common framework
- h: and Mib's comments shows that problem!
-
- d: That's what KDCOPServiceStarter is for :)
-
- Don: Now if kontact is running then loadX will load the X part in kontact
- Don: (if it is not already loaded) and return a dcop iface for that
- Don: part.
- Don:
- Don: If kontact is not running but is the users preferred application
- Don: then loadX will start kontact and then do the above.
- Don:
- Don: If kontact is not running and is not the users preferred application
- Don: then a standalone version of X should be started, and an iface for
- Don: that standalone app returned.
- Don:
- Don: I think this library should be in libtdepim ad all the tdepim apps
- Don: should be moved into tdepim, so their iface files all be in one
- Don: package. Or alternatively a new kdeinterfaces package be created
- Don: and used as a general repository for interface files.
- Don:
- Don: Another important issue is invokeMailer and the fact that currently
- Don: KDE just runs kmail with command line arguments by default. That has
- Don: to be made smarter.
- Don:
- Don: I guess when kmail is run with command line arguments it could
- Don: actually use loadKMail() and then use the resulting iface.
- Don:
- Don: And the same for all other loadX apps.
-
-
- Status Bar
- ----------
-
- d We need a more sophisticated handling (progressbar, etc)
-
- Don: Definitely.
-
- # We now have tdelibs/tdeparts/statusbarextension. This is intended to solve these
- # problems, right?
-
- d: Right. Simply add it as childobject in your part and use it's API. Works even
- d: for other KPart hosts than Kontact
-
-
- Kontact plugin unification
- -------------------------
-
- # Currently all Kontact plugins look quite similar. It would be nice, if we
- # could provide infratructure to reduce duplicated code as far as possible.
-
- d I thouht of a KontactPart, similar to a KOPart, if that makes sense. I don't think
- d a normal KPart is sufficient for us.
-
- Don: I've spent quite a bit of time in all pim *_part files and IIRC
- Don: the amount of duplicated code, is pretty much negligible.
- Don:
- Don: But a KontactPart could make sense for when the parts want to communicate with
- Don: the container. Eg. if the parts want to add folders to the container
- Don: apps folder tree (or navigator)
- Don:
- Don: And maybe for communicating with the status bar.
-
-
- Communication/Interaction:
- ==========================
-
- d Invoking parts when they are needed for the first time takes too long,
- d starting all takes too long on startup
- d Idea: Mark complex parts as basic parts that get loaded anyway
-
- # parts could be loaded in the background based on usage patterns. Kontact could
- # remember which parts were used at the last session and load them in the
- # background after loading the initial part to be shown at startup.
-
- z This idea seems to be similar to Microsoft's
- z hide-unused-item-in-the-menu strategy. But it probably mess up
- z kaddressbook integration. Although not used during every session
- z this part is needed and should be always loaded. This strategy
- z would be great for could-to-come parts, like a summary part.
- z Background loading of parts is OK. The idea is simple : load the
- z last used part on startup. Make sure its loading finishes and then
- z load the rest once the user can already interact with the last used
- z loaded part.
-
- g why do we always need the addressbook? Is libtdeabc not sufficient?
-
- Don: I guess my machine is too fast, starting parts is pretty quick here :-)
-
- d DCOP is too slow, internal communication should be handled via a dedicated
- d interface, communication with external applications (i.e. knotes) should be
- d done via wrapper parts that communicate with their respective IPC method to
- d their application using the native protocol (DCOP, Corba, etc).
-
- # Are you sure that DCOP is too slow for in-process communications? I thought it
- # would handle this special case efficiently.
-
- s It is only efficient in the sense that it won't do a roundtrip to the server but
- s dispatch locally. What remains is the datastream marshalling. Not necessarily
- s ueberfast. But I think the point is a different one: It is simply not as intuitive
- s to use as C++. Yes, DCOPRef already helps a lot for simple calls, but talking to
- s remote components still requires one to do error checking after each method call.
- s in addition the stub objects one deals with (AddressBookIface_stub for example)
- s are no real references. To the programmer they look like a reference to a
- s remote addressbook component, but it really isn't. there is no state involved.
- s like if between two method calls on the stub the addressbook process gets restarted,
- s the state is lost and the programmer on the client side has no way to find out
- s about that. you'll end up with really complex code on the caller side to handle things
- s like that.
-
- d Yes, but of course one should always prefer in-process IPC if possible. DCOP
- d currently _works_ for Kontact, but that's all about it. It isn't exactly elegant.
- d The only advantange of the current approach is that we can allow the user to
- d run one of the parts standalone. I am not really sure we want that. I used to find
- d it desireable, but I am not sure anymore.
-
- MiB: But that's the whole idea behind Kontact---to be able to integrate apps
- MiB: _and_ to have standalone versions. Just think about KNotes... impossible
- MiB: to have it limited to only Kontact!
-
- Don: I love being able to run the apps inside or outside of the
- Don: container, it's just really cool being able to choose I think it's a
- Don: great feature and users will really love having the
- Don: choice. Especially when they are migrating.
-
- MiB: Definitely.
-
- Don: I think if we use the loadX methods defined above then we can still
- Don: support this. I'm PRO DCOP. And this way we don't have to special
- Don: case of the code depending on whether the application is running in
- Don: a container app or not.
- Don:
- Don: I find difficult to imagine a function that DCOP is not fast enough
- Don: to support. It supports all our current PIM IPC needs fine.
-
- MiB: yes, not too much against DCOP. But for KNotes I thought about turning
- MiB: a note into a plugin that can be loaded by Kontact and KNotes independently.
- MiB: like this, there's no DCOP necessary anymore and makes it much more flexible.
- MiB: e.g. usage of different display configs, a note embedded somewhere and having
- MiB: a parent or standalone on the desktop.
-
- # Communication with external applications is something which doesn't fit too
- # well with the 'integrated' approach of Kontact. Is this really necessary?
-
- d We won't get around it, think knotes, maybe sync tools, think abstact 3rd party
- d projects (not sure the latter is really that important, but we should consider it.
- d it barely plays a role anyway).
-
- MiB: hm. true. But not too important, IMHO. Just add a Kontact-DCOP interface :-)
-
- h: Pretty much to talk about...
- h: 1. the speed of DCOP is not that important. I worry more about the integration
- h: of all parts. So how would I cross reference an 'Event' with a 3rd party
- h: Kaplan Part? A common base class for all PIM records comes into my mind - again -
- h: Now with normal C++ you can pass a pointer through the framework
- h: Doing it with DCOP we need to marshall and demarshall it. This part can get really
- h: ugly if we want more tight integration of all KaplanParts. We could add
- h: a pure virtual method to marshall to a QDataStream. So now marshalling is done.
- h: For demarshalling we need to get the type of the QDataStream content and then we need
- h: to ask someone - a factory - to get a object for the type and then call another pure
- h: virtual.....
- h: The question is if this is really necessary
- h: 2. stand a lone apps
- h: The 'stand a lone' app can always run in the same address space but be a top level widget
- h: itself. WIth some DCOP magic clicking on the KMAIL icon code make Kaplan detach the part...
- h: 3. Integration!
- h: The goal of Kaplan should not be to merge some XML files an give a common Toolbar for
- h: X applications in one shell. I want true integration. Yes KMAIL can use KABC to show
- h: all emails for one contact but a generic way to do such things would be more than nice.
- h: It would be nice if I could relate the PIM objects in a common way. So I create an Event and
- h: relate some todos to it. So for KDE4 I want a common base class for all PIM classes including mail
- h: see Opies OPimRecord for a bit too huge base class
-
- Security
- --------
-
- d If we use the tdeparts (ktrader) approach to find a parts by looking
- d for an application with the correct mime type this might raise security
- d problems. (Martin's concern)
-
- # Looking up Kontact parts isn't based on mime types but on services of type
- # "Kontact/Plugin". This is just as save as starting a program statically linking
- # its parts. I really don't see any security concerns here.
-
- d Ok, if we limit stuff to Kontact/Plugin and Kontact/Part that might be safe enough
- d indeed. I (and Martin, who raise this concern initially) was just afraid of
- d allowing "any" part.
-
- h: hmm If somebody can install a Service into the global kde dir or the user kde home
- h: there is something else broken IMHO
-
-
- Summary View
- ------------
- h: How would one best integrate a summary view into kontact?
- h: a) add a virtual QWidget *summary(const QDateTime&, QWidget* parent );
- h: to get a summary widget for a day?
- h: b) use some sort of XML to UI to represent the summary informations
- h: c) have a stand a lone part which opens the PIM data seperately? ( How
- h: to synchronize access? )
|