Your Opinions Requested

Hi everyone.

I've spent my recent development activity on putting gnome-config back 
into Balsa. Unfortunately, I lost the patch, and since I wasn't too big 
on the original plan anyway I rewrote it. (It is not yet CVS committed, 
don't look for it -- see below)

The new system is nifty. Without going into detail, its design lets me 
hook up the configuration to multiple backends. Specifically, we can 
load people's libPropList-stored data *and* their gnome-config data, 
then save it only to gnome-config. As I understand it, gconf is of 
succificiently different design that we would not be forward-portable to 
it, however :-(

However, the design is still pretty tied to gnome-config. Here's where 
Your Opinions come in. I can:

a -- Finish up the gnome-config code, have you setup up Balsa all over 
again. But it will be done by this weekend in all likelihood.

b -- Tweak the engine a bit, write a libPropList backend, and bask in 
the ultimate coolness that it would be. However, that will take three or 
four more coding sessions, which I get in once or twice a week, tops.

Which would you rather see? I'd lean towards (b), because it will 
encourage a more robust design, and I already have nifty ideas (global 
Balsa settings, overrides from environment variables.....)

Repondez, s'il vous plait.

Peter Williams

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]