Re: GConf design goals.
- From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- To: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>
- Cc: Colm Smyth <Colm Smyth Sun COM>, bje apnic net, gconf-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GConf design goals.
- Date: 03 Mar 2001 18:39:26 -0500
Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com> writes:
> Only programs that use bonobo-conf, since corba_any_to_string() is part
> of bonobo_conf.
You could easily put corba_any_to_string() in ORBit itself, and then
any app using CORBA would have access to this function, which seems
appropriate to me.
> But yes, you are right and the two solutions are functional equivalent.
> You consider the whole thing as "syntactic sugar", and you think the most
> important thing is to simply provide a working solution. IMO there are
> some more criteria's to rate the quality of software, so even "syntactic
> sugar" counts (for me).
I'm not saying syntactic sugar isn't important. I'm saying a) it
doesn't count as a fundamental design issue b) it isn't worth causing
some other major problem, e.g. adding a CORBA dependency where there
was none before and c) I think it's sensible to do sugar after seeing
what ad hoc sugar app developers come up with, it's hard to predict
the proper sugar in advance, in my experience.
] [Thread Prev