Re: dconf

Also I would imagine a dconf-editor app would not be practical without
schemas especially for settings of type bool/enum where you want a


On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 09:20 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Hi,
> On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org> wrote:
> > Le jeudi 02 avril 2009, à 12:31 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit :
> >> This is honestly a problem space that I haven't spent too much time
> >> exploring, but there are certainly possibilities here.
> >
> > Schemas are nice, IMHO, so it'd be nice to have people (not necessarily
> > you) explore this problem space ;-)
> s/nice/essential/
> Otherwise as soon as two pieces of code both use a setting, you're f*d
> because you have to hardcode the default value in both places. So it
> breaks the idea of process-transparency (or even of using a setting
> from two places in the same process) if you don't have some single
> place for the default value to live.
> pre-gconf we had loads and loads of bugs related to this, which is why
> gconf addressed it.
> (the old gnome_config_* solution was whenever you got a setting, you
> had to provide the default, so the default was effectively
> cut-and-pasted in N places)
> Havoc
> _______________________________________________
> desktop-devel-list mailing list
> desktop-devel-list gnome org

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