Re: NFS locking workaround merged ?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

On Tue, Dec 17, 2002 at 10:10:47AM +0000, Michael Meeks wrote:
> 
> 	AFAIR you wrote some code that allowed people to use local locking,
> however - all I see in CVS is:
> 
>    /* FIXME locking code is out of sync with XML backend
>      * (doesn't support the GCONF_LOCAL_LOCKS stuff)
>      */
> 
> 	in the GMarkup backend ... ;-) are you planning to merge the
> GCONF_LOCAL_LOCKS stuff to the XML backend ? and/or the gmarkup
> backend?

I meant to, I sort of wanted to unbreak it to handle /tmp properly
without the DOS first, and also it doesn't play nice with GConf1
(basically if using GCONF_LOCAL_LOCKS you can't run Galeon 1).  When
those are fixed probably GCONF_LOCAL_LOCKS should be the default and
then we have GCONF_SHARED_LOCKS or something as the env variable.

> 	Also which backend would you recommend using ?

XML is the only one with any testing. markup code is way more
sane/comprehensible, so if I was adding a significant new feature or
we were seeing lots of bugs in XML, I'd probably consider it
worthwhile to cut over to the markup backend and fix it, but as long
as the code is just sitting there, we may as well use XML as it's
tested.

> 	Also - it's rather a pain having 'gconf-sanity-check' in gconf, since
> everyone has to (in practice) make it depend on gtk+ thus gnome-vfs
> (etc. etc.) all depend on gtk+ at a packaging level - which really makes
> no sense.
> 
> 	Any chance we can move that wholesale to gnome-session ?

Hmm, I suppose that's true. It would probably be fine to do so.

Havoc