|
|
@ -2197,11 +2197,11 @@ that, I am certainly proven wrong.
|
|
|
|
While I do know that &DCOP; basically doesn't know about the data types
|
|
|
|
While I do know that &DCOP; basically doesn't know about the data types
|
|
|
|
it sends, so that you could use &DCOP; without using &Qt;, look at how
|
|
|
|
it sends, so that you could use &DCOP; without using &Qt;, look at how
|
|
|
|
it is used in daily &kde; usage: people send types like
|
|
|
|
it is used in daily &kde; usage: people send types like
|
|
|
|
<classname>QString</classname>, <classname>QRect</classname>,
|
|
|
|
<classname>TQString</classname>, <classname>QRect</classname>,
|
|
|
|
<classname>QPixmap</classname>, <classname>QCString</classname>, ...,
|
|
|
|
<classname>QPixmap</classname>, <classname>QCString</classname>, ...,
|
|
|
|
around. These use &Qt;-serialization. So if somebody choose to support
|
|
|
|
around. These use &Qt;-serialization. So if somebody choose to support
|
|
|
|
&DCOP; in a GNOME program, they would either have to claim to use
|
|
|
|
&DCOP; in a GNOME program, they would either have to claim to use
|
|
|
|
<classname>QString</classname>,... types (although they don't do so),
|
|
|
|
<classname>TQString</classname>,... types (although they don't do so),
|
|
|
|
and emulate the way &Qt; does the streaming, or they would send other
|
|
|
|
and emulate the way &Qt; does the streaming, or they would send other
|
|
|
|
string, pixmap and rect types around, and thus not be interoperable.
|
|
|
|
string, pixmap and rect types around, and thus not be interoperable.
|
|
|
|
</para>
|
|
|
|
</para>
|
|
|
|