Re: why bonobo-config

On 29Aug2001 01:04PM (-0400), Michael Meeks wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > If you have an abstraction for a given feature, you can chain them
> > infinitely:
>         Depends if the abstraction actualy maps a feature superset onto
> the underlying (more limited) abstraction - as is the case with
> bonobo-config and gconfd.
> > However, only one of these layers is sufficient to let you magically
> > plug a different backend later. i.e. there is no point having 6 layers
> > of abstraction that are all basically parallel.
>         Yes - true, but the real issue here is maintainership - and it
> seems that it is not possible to get changes into GConf[1], that it's
> design is strongly based on a premis that CORBA shouldn't be exposed -
> which is antithetical to the GNOME viewpoint. Luckily we don't have 6
> extra layers of abstraction, just 1.

It seems to me that there is a deep disagreement about whether the
basis of the GNOME platform should be GObject or CORBA_Object (OK,
that's a bit of an oversimplification, but you get my point). It seems
to me that we will have a hard time developing a coherent platform so
long as we have this divide.

 - Maciej

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]