Rename ShellClient to XdgShellClient in order to reflect that it
represents only xdg-shell clients.
Details
- Reviewers
- None
- Group Reviewers
KWin - Commits
- R108:168ea98845a0: Rename ShellClient to XdgShellClient
Compiles, tests still pass.
Diff Detail
- Repository
- R108 KWin
- Branch
- drop-wl-shell
- Lint
Lint Errors Excuse: cppcheck doesn't understand std::tie() - Unit
No Unit Test Coverage - Build Status
Buildable 15872 Build 15890: arc lint + arc unit
I'm not sure what parent revision has to be. :|
My local branch looks like this at the moment
* fbb743f59 - (37 minutes ago) Rename ShellClient to XdgShellClient - Vlad Zagorodniy (HEAD -> drop-wl-shell, github/drop-wl-shell) * 864a19944 - (27 hours ago) [wayland] Drop xdg-shell v5 support - Vlad Zagorodniy * 3e633bc12 - (33 hours ago) [tests] Drop wl-shell test client - Vlad Zagorodniy * 2f2c9b1f0 - (2 days ago) [effects/slidingpopups] Don't start animation if there is no slide edge - Vlad Zagorodniy * 336154ca5 - (2 days ago) [platforms/wayland] Drop wl-shell support - Vlad Zagorodniy * 522673b0e - (3 days ago) [wayland] Drop wl-shell support - Vlad Zagorodniy * cd608fd07 - (3 days ago) [autotests] Don't test wl-shell clients - Vlad Zagorodniy * 91d6d9dd7 - (5 days ago) Port QPA away from Wayland - Vlad Zagorodniy
I don't have a strong opinion about that but I feel we could leave the ShellClient name since it's shorter and there is no ambiguity anyway when there are only xdg-shell clients. One could add a comment to the class that these instances represent xdg-shell clients.
It seems like you want to leave a room for other protocols in ShellClient class, however as far as I can tell you keeping wl-shell and xdg-shell in one class (ShellClient) was a bad idea. "Fixing" xdg-shell could easily break wl-shell and complexity of the code was a bit high.
Given that you don't have a strong opinion on this one, I'll land this patch as is.
Belated +1.
FWIW, at some point I wanted to split this out into
-> ShellClient (Abstract superclass)
-> XdgShellTopLevel -> XdgShellPopup
I think it'll help clean up a lot.
Does this mean you want to go back to using the ShellClient name or was it a typo and you did mean XdgShellClient for the abstract superclass?
Does this mean you want to go back to using the ShellClient name or was it a typo and you did mean XdgShellClient for the abstract superclass?
I mean there's going to be changes to be XdgBlahBlah on all the important code anyway. I don't care what the superclass name is.