Re: Is GNOME 2 dead ?

[Stephen Browne <Stephen Browne Sun COM>]

Hi Havoc,

> As a side note:
> 
>   a) bonobo-conf doesn't count as an extra config system, since in
>      GNOME it can only be used as a GConf wrapper. it is just an
>      alternative API to the single config system.

Although this was kinda agreed a while back, its NOT really the case is it?

I mean the control center is using the archiver moniker (with xml storage)
and evolution is using the xmldb moniker.  I don't believe that these will
ever move to using the gconf moniker since it doesn't make any sense to invest
effort into the archiver and xmldb stuff only to be blown away sometime in the
future by replacing them with the gconf moniker.

IIRC the first introduction of b-c into libgnome didn't use gconf either and 
only did so later to put an end to the flamewar that ensued.

I know Evolution can be considered as an extra part of GNOME and so could
basically use whatever configuration method it likes, but to me the control 
center is absolutely CORE and its not using Gconf so I surmise that there
is not only Gconf but infact at least two different and incompatible 
configuration systems in GNOME 2.0!

>   b) gnome_config_ isn't a config system, it's a .ini file parser.
>      not a particular evil or harmful thing. I wouldn't add it 
>      today, but porting all our stuff away from gnome_config_ 
>      is not going to happen for GNOME 2.

And what are .ini files used for?  Configuration right :)
Why can we not port from gnome_config for 2.0?
Why? Oh I know, because developers don't know what they should be porting to!

Stephen.

> 
> Havoc
>