Re: GConf design problems?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

"Hongli Lai" <hongli telekabel nl> writes:
> 
> OK, so GConf does not store everything in one file, but rather in different
> directories in ~/.gconf.
> I went to Gnotices and replied to those who fear that the GConf database
> will corrupt, but now they complain about that they don't want 2000
> directory that will clutter their homedir (*sigh*).

So they can write their own one-huge-file backend, and be less robust
and efficient. But I expect they will just whine instead.

> Others complain about that GConf will end up will zilions of
> backends.

That's more or less the idea, though I doubt it's true. 

> Why did you guys chose for an XML backend instead of some INI-based
> backend, just like KDE or gnome-config?

Becuase INI is a stupid format?

> XML is 80% tags and 20% data (or so a friend of mine says).

blah blah blah

> And why did you decided to put everything in different directories rather
> than
> 1 file per application?

Because it's faster to do lookups.
 
> Really, you guys should take a look at Gnotices.

I have looked before; it's the same as Slashdot. You basically read
the stories and ignore the comments.

They aren't hurting anything by being idiots, just let them
be. There's no point dragging out the argument.

Havoc