Le samedi 11 novembre 2006 à 12:33 +0000, Emmanuele Bassi a écrit : > no. > > preferences API is not that simple; you end up with a lot of > applications locking and unlocking a single file, By no means am I talking about shipping all configuration in a single file. The GConf tree should be mapped as a directory tree on the filesystem - like with the current one-file-per-directory XML backend. > you cannot have > multiple programs changing system-wide defaults, Erm, that's the opposite. Moving to a file-based monitoring would allow on-the-fly changes to system-wide defaults as long as proper locking is used. Currently this is not possible and you have to send a signal to all running gconfd instances after changing system-wide defaults. > and you have a lot of > load/save code paths that might just end up blowing up you > configuration. I can see a risk for deadlocks, but I fail to see how you would blow the configuration. I don't think it's impossible, of course, but I see no obvious scenario for that. However that could be said of the current GConf code, which can blow up the configuration because it doesn't have proper locking (except when global locking is enabled). -- Josselin Mouette /\./\ "Do you have any more insane proposals for me?"
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Ceci est une partie de message =?ISO-8859-1?Q?num=E9riquement?= =?ISO-8859-1?Q?_sign=E9e?=