Re: why bonobo-config

On Wed, 2001-08-29 at 19:50, Maciej Stachowiak wrote:
> 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.
it seems to me that we, GNOME hackers, don't learn from our past
experiences :-( That is, when the GConf vs BonoboConfig war, we ended
up, AFAIR, agreeing on using BonoboConfig for accessing the
configuration, and there were some mails from many people agreeing on
the commitment to Bonobo for the GNOME platform.

Now it seems all this is forgotten. So, it seems to me that unless we
find a way for keeping the decisions for long, we'll continue losing a
lot of time in this kind of discussions.

Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> - <rodrigo ximian com> -

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