Re: migrating to new backend format

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Sun, 2003-10-05 at 19:54, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> certainly not convenient, no.  if it's going to be one file per app,
> then appname.xml or appname.gconf.xml would work perhaps?

That doesn't work because gconf has no knowledge of apps. It doesn't
matter which app is reading or writing. The tree of values is global,
like the filesystem.

It also doesn't work because you can have a directory named
appname.gconf.xml, the whole point of the % is to avoid colliding with
possible directory names.

> eek.  shouldn't we be defining what is valid vs. the other way around?

We're defining an ASCII subset. You can implement validation by checking
those bytes that aren't allowed or those that are, you still get the
same strings as valid/invalid.

If your point is that the ASCII subset should be different, it's too
late to change that; it's in the ABI. GNOME 3 material.

> what would be the chance of having the new gconf support both formats,
> and use the old one if old style files are about, and the new one
> otherwise?  users running older versions of gnome can just stick with
> the one, older format, and users of nothing but newer can just use the
> newer format.  (perhaps after a migration tool is run, if they had an
> older version once.)

People are just going to use whatever we ship by default, it needs to
work out of the box.

Havoc