Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>]

Ramiro Estrugo <ramiro fateware com> writes:

> Now that there are shipping products that use GConf (Nautilus of course,
> but others like gnome-vfs) I feel would be bad for end users if it is
> replaced with a newer slightly incompatible configuration solution.  
> 
> I don't want to argue about the technicalities of either solution,
> because they are just that.  
> 
> Id like to beg you to empathize with the user a little bit.  If we use a
> new configuration mechanism when we port Nautilus to GNOME 2.0, what are
> the consequences for the user ?  They lose all their old settings ?  We
> have to write a backward compatible layer of some kind that complicates
> and already complex system even more ?  We have a choice to stick with
> GConf and be different that the rest of GNOME apps (Evolution maybe) ? 
> We decide we don't have the bandwidth to deal with the new system
> because we have the experience of KNOWING how much time and energy we
> already spent getting the current solution to work ?

You still miss the point.

If Nautilus is ported to bonobo-config, you can still use the gconf moniker
and thus store all your configuration through GConf. So there's no change at
all for the user.

> Im sorry if im muddying the waters even more.  I feel this is a lose
> lose situation for both potential developers of the GNOME platform but
> most importantly the end users, and that makes me sad.

One question:

1.) Can GConf read GNOME 1.x and KDE configuration files ?

I guess so far we have no plan what to do with all the GNOME 1.x config
in ~/.gnome once all apps are ported over to GNOME 2, or is there a plan for this ?

-- 
Martin Baulig
martin gnome org (private)
baulig suse de (work)