Re: Getting libgnome* into shape

George wrote:

> On Wed, Aug 29, 2001 at 04:09:56PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > > Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com> writes:
> > > > Why does bonobo-config add a new API? Which one? bonobo-config simply uses an
> > > > (already) existing Bonobo interface.
> > >
> > > That is somewhat disingenous, because the "existing bonobo interface"
> > > was complicated a bit over what was otherwise necessary purely for
> > > b-c's benefit...
> >
> > Also not true. The exposed configuration API is the PropertyBag interface, which
> > we have even simplified (merged with the Property interface). It simply contains
> > nothing bonobo-config related.
> In that case why is there another Bonobo_ConfigDatabase using API that is not
> AT ALL related to bonobo-config in libgnome?  And if that is the case, we've
> entered a strange universe where libgnome is using neither bonobo-config nor
> GConf but something neither of us know.  I say it's bonobo-config, you say it
> has nothing to do with it.

Ok, we also have the ConfigDatabase interface, although most times you only use the
PropertyBag interface. But GConf exposes many more interfaces:
GConfClient, GConfEngine, GConfListeners, GConfBackendVTable, GConfDatabase and

I know, Havoc considers all those interfaces as private. But what is someone wants to
write a new backend, or wants to access the configuration through CORBA?

bonobo-config merges all those interfaces into the PropertyBag, EventSource and
ConfigDatabase interfaces. The PropertyBag and EventSource interfaces are standard
Bonobo interfaces, so the only new interface is ConfigDatabase. As opposed to GConf,
where I count 6 new interfaces. Not counting those strange interfaces like GConfValue.

- Dietmar

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