Re: Getting libgnome* into shape
- From: Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>
- To: Joe Shaw <joe ximian com>
- Cc: Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>, George <jirka 5z com>, gnome-2-0-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: Getting libgnome* into shape
- Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 09:37:32 +0100 (BST)
Unfortunately this applies to all and any apis, including bonobo-config.
Using corba interface X to achieve Y is still an api - sorry, this
argument just doesn't cut it.
On 29 Aug 2001, 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.
>
> 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.
>
> > 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.
>
> > 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_*)
>
> Joe
>
Sander
I haven't been vampired. You've been Weatherwaxed.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]