Re: Is GNOME 2 dead ?

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Stephen Browne <Stephen Browne Sun COM> writes: 
> 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.

Control center will have to backend on gconf and install schema
files. It may also use the archiver, as I understand it that isn't
mutually exclusive however. Chema has told me that GConf as main
storage backend is the plan.
 
> 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!

Control center will AFAIK use GConf. If it isn't using GConf as
backend, then I would like to discuss that with someone.

> Why? Oh I know, because developers don't know what they should be porting to!

GConf will be stable and supported in the GNOME 2 platform. Galeon is
using it, Nautilus is using it. It is the required backend for GNOME
2.

You can use bonobo-conf as wrapper if you prefer that API, but it's
optional. The GConf library API is not deprecated and will not be
deprecated in the foreseeable future. I will continue to maintain it
and am maintaining it now.

My personal recommendation for GUI apps at this time would be to just
use GTK 2 as base, and then add other libs as you see fit or have a
need for them. For non-GUI apps use GLib as base and add other libs as
you need them. There is no reason to have a checklist of libraries
that you have to use. ;-) Use the ones you have time to learn and that
add features your users want to have.

Havoc