Re: Getting libgnome* into shape

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On 29 Aug 2001, Martin Baulig wrote:

[snip - libgnome1compat]

> > There are two pieces of API which are just as applicable to if you use GConf
> > or if you're using bonobo_config with the gconf monicker.  (or not, they're
> > just for getting paths).  They could be for all I care dropped as well.
> > Else, it's actually bonobo-conf that's adding API to libgnome*, not the other
> > way around.  And I can't see a reason for removing that.  Though I suppose it
> > would make a lot more sense to make that initialization optional.  So that
> > only people that use it actually init it.
> 
> You added an explicit GConf dependency to all GNOME 2 applications - that's different to
> the implicit dependency through bonobo-config which we had before.
> 

Does it matter? I mean *REALLY* matter? We can all argue about this until
the Sun becomes a red giant, but i remain extremely unconvinced it is an
issue we ned to have large discussions and arguments over.

Either:
	a) application authors like gconf and use apps that use them,
	   an no amount of bonobo-config pushing in libgnome will change 
	   that
or
	b) the like bonobo-config and will use it anyways, whatever
	   libgnome might do 

So it's largely un extremely unimportant minor detail definately not worth
any of the fanfare and time spent on it.

> -- 
> Martin Baulig
> martin gnome org (private)
> baulig suse de (work)
> 

	Sander

I haven't been vampired. You've been Weatherwaxed.