Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Ramiro Estrugo <ramiro fateware com>]

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
concerned.

-re