Re: why bonobo-config

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 01:04:23PM -0400, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > 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.

Could we not get into a discussion of what is anthitethical to a GNOME
viewpoint?  GNOME is a community project.  Thus it's viewpoint is the
viewpoint of all it's members.  I can find quite a few who are OK with
the GConf API.  There is no GNOME religion.  This is YOUR opinion, do not
present it as an opinion of the GNOME project.

> 	Consequently hiding the module and it's API allowing for its
> (possible) replacement in future without code disruption seems a resonable
> long term strategy for Gnome IMHO - quite apart from the added benefits
> that bonobo-config gives you in terms of API reuse, scripting bindings,
> rich types etc.

How can I replace bonobo-config?  I could write an abstraction.  The previous
statement does not make sense.  It only makes sense if you prefer
bonobo-conf, it makes no sense for someone that doesn't.

George

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   The great masses of the people ... will more easily
   fall victims to a big lie than to a small one.
                       -- Adolf Hitler, "Mein Kampf", 1933