Re: GConf debate ... the hermenutical key.

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On 17 Jun 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> 
> Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> writes: 
> > We are talking GNOME 2.0 here.  And we have broken more APIs for this
> > release that I can list in the next couple of hours (speaking of Gtk+
> > only here). 
> 
> My point is that if bonobo-config is a wrapper, there's simply no
> reason to break the API. Or the implementation.
> 
> > Few applications use GConf and it would take little effort to migrate
> > them to a better system.  The only limitation to do such migration
> > would be pride.  
> 
> First we have to establish that we have a better system. ;-) 
> 

Another thing - people still working on getting their application ready
and doing so on gnome-1.4 can very esily make use of gconf and then when
moving to gnome-2.0 just not touch that part of the code - essentially
foregoing the need to retest a non-trivial part of their programs
(preferences). 

I would really hestitate putting the requirement 'must use bonobo-config
for configuration' as a requirement for application in gnome-2.0
especially as gconf is (and to the best of my knowledge, has been there
for a while) - whatever the ultimate direction in configuration management
for GNOME is.

It is in my opinion very unlikely that gnome-2.0 will not be a mix (at
best) of gconf and bonobo-config and I'm not sure even suggesting
application developers/maintainsers that adding port to bonobo-config is a
prudent advice.

> Let's wait for Elliot to write this up. (I don't know if he was really
> planning to, but I am hoping so.)
> 
> I think it's silly to say that pride is my problem, when I've given a
> number of technical issues that I consider pretty important.
> 
> Havoc
> 

	Sander

One day a tortoise will learn to fly
	-- Terry Pratchett, 'Small Gods'