Re: D-BUS enabled GConf available

[Spindel <spider jamtlinux net>]

Owen Taylor wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-12-08 at 17:57, Michael Meeks wrote:
>
> > Hi Mikael,
> >
> > On Fri, 2003-12-05 at 23:27, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> >
> > > * The CORBA-version has always had a problem with not dying together 
> > >  with the session (still doesn't) which means you have problems if you 
> > >  login from several locations (for example in a thin client setup).
> >
> > 	Well; the odd thing is - we have a client using umpteen thin clients in
> > anger; they have a 'blade' setup, whereby eg. they run evolution on 1
> > blade, galeon on another, nautilus on another - and (I assume) this
> > rather relies on GConf's network transparency in order to keep settings
> > coherent.[1]
>
>
> In real experience, GConf's current network transparency is a disaster
> not because of problems with the usage of CORBA, but because of the
> ad-hoc nature of it. Just because workstation A and workstation B share 
> the same home directory doesn't mean that workstation A can access
> arbitrary (or any) network ports on workstation B. So, if the GConf
> server happens to start up on workstation B because the user logged
> in there first, then the user can't use GConf on workstation .


This is -very- true, even more so in a protected network environment 
(ssh X forwarding between machines. Its a fairly transparent setup, 
except that gconf dies horrid death on it) where you can't even address 
the machines in between eachother.  Having gconf aware of something that 
goes through the X standard protocol would be -very- welcome in order to 
avoid ugly dynamic port-forwarding rules.


> The D-BUS protocol isn't limited to local network connections, so a
> D-BUS based protocol could certainly be reused for the central server
> as well as a CORBA-based protocol, though perhaps neither is right.


Sounds great, and something I'd for one welcome

  // Spider