Re: Getting libgnome* into shape

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM> writes:

> 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.

Well, there is a difference. A difference which doesn't show up right now
because at the moment, there isn't any difference at all.

However, let's assume GConf will have a public CORBA interface at some point
in the future - no matter which CORBA interface this is. Does it make any
sense to continue using it's C API or won't it be much better if bonobo-config
talked to the gconfd directly via this CORBA interface ?

Once we did this switch, apps don't necessarily need to depend on GConf (as a
library) anymore - they don't need to link against it and they don't need to
initialize it. They're just using bonobo-config which talks to some config
backend over CORBA (and this backend is the gconfd).

Now let's assume we did this changes and there's a reason to implement the gconf
moniker as external process - for instance because this external process is
already the gconfd which implements the moniker internally - then we effectively
removed the GConf dependency from all the apps and moved it into this CORBA
server - and we can get rid of the GConf C API in all applications which don't
use GConf.

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