Re: why bonobo-config

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo gnome-db org> writes:
> 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.

What was agreed is that libgnome would access GConf via
bonobo-config, and the reason for that was that Martin liked the API
more and he was writing that code. There wasn't any other reason why
it mattered whether libgnome used bonobo-config or not. Except perhaps
"to force people to use bonobo-config."

But I've always said that the GConf C API remains supported and people
are welcome to use it. It will not be deprecated in favor of a
CORBA-only API.

We didn't agree to require apps to use bonobo-config. The requirement
for desktop apps is that they end up using GConf as backend, via some
API. Because that's user-visible.

> 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.

RFP process?

Havoc