Re: Getting libgnome* into shape

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 05:30:12PM -0400, Joe Shaw wrote:
> On 29 Aug 2001 14:56:18 +0100, Sander Vesik wrote:
> > 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.

Wow, I didn't think that Sun was gonna become a red giant.  What do you think
this will do to Sun's stock price?

> Sure, it matters. An implicit dependency is nicer because what's behind
> it becomes an implementation detail. It's just like imposing the policy
> of having private structures and using an accessor API instead of
> messing with the structure directly, which we can all agree is
> beneficial: just look at gnome-libs 1.x and it's explicit dependency on
> Imlib.

Imlib and GConf dependencies are completely different.  If GConf is used in
libgnome* it exposes no extra API.  It is just linked to libgnome.  If we
ever switch to something else.  Apps that don't use GConf themeselves will
not see a difference.  Apps that still use GConf will have to link to it.
Just like it would be with bonobo-config.

Imlib dependency was bad since we had imlib structures in the headers
and such nonsense.

Using GConf in gnome-libs doesn't make it impossible for us to move away from
it.  In the same exact way that bonobo-config does this.  There is NO
difference.  However the current implementation of bonobo-config integration
means that we are TIED to bonobo-config and cannot move from it.  So I
consider that worse.

> > 	a) application authors like gconf and use apps that use them,
> > 	   an no amount of bonobo-config pushing in libgnome will change 
> > 	   that
> 
> That's fine, because that's implemented on an app-by-app basis. It's not
> imposed on all application developers by the platform.

And it isn't even if gnome-libs uses GConf internally, read above discussion.

> > So it's largely un extremely unimportant minor detail definately not worth
> > any of the fanfare and time spent on it.
> 
> Until, 3 or 4 or n years down the road we decide that gconf isn't
> adequate for our configuration database and we have to go and break
> everything again (see for reference gnome_config_*)

Then we stop linking with it.  We can even stay binary compatible.  That is,
as long as the app itself doesn't use GConf, but then ...

And what if, I know this sounds inconcievable now, but from past gnome
experience this WILL happen.  We find that bonobo-config is not "adequate" by
whatever reasons.  And I'm sure that will happen given that similar things
have happened in a smaller timescale.  Then we have to stay with it, since
libgnome exposes bonobo-config API.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   As long as people will accept crap, 
   it will be financially profitable to dispense it.
                       -- Dick Cavett, in "Playboy", 1971