Re: GConf design goals.

[Colm Smyth <Colm Smyth Sun COM>]

>From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>
>X-Accept-Language: en
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>To: Colm Smyth <Colm Smyth Sun COM>
>CC: hp redhat com, bje apnic net, gconf-list gnome org
>Subject: Re: GConf design goals.
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>
>Colm Smyth wrote:
>
>> >> >The difference is that only bonobo-conf programs can access those
>> >> >values if I decode everything into a string. Else every program can
>> >> >access/modify those values.
>> >>
>> >> Wrong. Only programs that know about the data-structure you are
>> >> encoding and the encoding method can access those values.
>> >
>> >Hi Colm,
>> >
>> >that is not true. You can explore the contents of each CORBA_any with
>> >the DynAny interface (see CORBA specs).
>>
>> No real application will do this; if they did, it would completely
>> negate the convenience of storing a structure in the first place.
>
>Either you are interested in accessing arbitrary structures, or you are
>not.
>If I want to access/modify a configuration value in a convenient way you
>have
>to know the data format. Else you have to use the DynAny interface.
>Where is the problem?

The problem is that applications are interested in accessing configuration
information, but storing them in structures makes that information harder
to access (except for the application that defines the structure that
was stored) and more susceptible to breakage when the application evolves.
For explanations and examples, see previous e-mails.

Colm.


>- Dietmar
>