Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Ramiro Estrugo <ramiro fateware com>]

Martin Baulig wrote:
> 
> The developer of a new application should use bonobo-config and choose
> whatever backend he wants for it.
> 
> [snip]
>
> Well, there are two ways to solve this problem:
> 
> a) Port Nautilus to bonobo-config and use the gconf backend. This'd make
>    Nautilus backward and forward compatible (which is also important if
>    you have a shared ~ and some machines with an old Nautilus) with itself.
> 
> b) Use either bonobo-config with the gconf backend or gconf in the application
>    which "owns" the property.
> 
>    The easiest way is probably to make Nautilus "own" this property. Then you
>    can just stick with GConf in Nautilus and don't need to care about
>    bonobo-config at all.
> 
> c) The only thing which does not work is if a property is "owned" by an
>    application which uses bonobo-config with another backend than gconf.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> Of course it will be. And of course it'll also be forward compatible with
> itself. Even if you port Nautilus to bonobo-config, you shouldn't change your
> config backend.
> 
> bonobo-config supports both GConf and its own native XML format as backend and
> for Nautilus, there is no reason to use another backend as GConf.
> 
> --
> Martin Baulig

Martin,

Im not sure I understand all the details of how this works at this time.

The decision to make this change is not up to me of course.  I am very
surprised that it seems like its not up to Havoc at all either, which
makes no sense to me considering that of all of us he probably
understands the problem the best.

I feel very bad about what Im about to say because I've worked hard with
Havoc to make Nautilus work well with GConf and he has been the most
pleasant and responsive maintainer of any Free software project I've
dealt with.

What I want to say is that I don't want Nautilus to be the excuse for
there being 2 configuration mechanisms.  Nautilus is right now the
heaviest user of GConf.  This usage is pretty extensive and complex, its
not as simple as you might think.  But still...

I will really hate having to drop GConf and use the new scheme, but I
will do it if it means that the platform as a whole has ONE
configuration scheme and that Nautilus better integrates with GNOME as a
Desktop and with GNOME applications.

One thing I've learned over the years is that there are times in the
life of large projects where the most important thing to do is decide on
one of two (or more) competing solutions.  Sadly, the results are never
black and white, just tradeoffs.

I do feel badly for Havoc and the impression that I have that he is
being railroaded into this solution.

-re