Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- From: Ramiro Estrugo <ramiro fateware com>
- To: Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, gnome-2-0-list gnome org, gconf-list gnome org, gnome-components-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- Date: Fri, 15 Jun 2001 17:59:26 -0700
Martin Baulig wrote:
> You only "need" to port it to bonobo-config if you want to read/write configuration
> data which is shared between Nautilus and other applications.
> Martin Baulig
But Martin, if I did not care about Nautilus sharing data with other
applications, I wouldn't bother arguing about this at all.
Isn't one of the strong points of a GConf-like configuration scheme the
fact that there is ONE mechanism ? One way for things to happen ? One
thing for developers to deal with ?
I think the worst case scenario by far is the one where both are
available and its up to application developers to decide.
What about things like the User Level ? I think everyone agrees that
should be more than just a Natuilusism. But if we "decide" to stick
with GConf, then we are out of whack with other User Levels ?
I honestly hope we end up with one mechanism. But even then, if we port
Nautilus to the new mechanism, will Nautilus be backward compatible with
itself ? To me there is no question that it should be.
Anyway, I think I've stated my case. I agree with Owen and Havoc about
this issue being a non-starter as far as the platform as whole is
] [Thread Prev