Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- From: Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>
- To: veillard redhat com
- Cc: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>, Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>, gnome-2-0-list gnome org, gconf-list gnome org, gnome-components-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- Date: 16 Jun 2001 17:50:11 -0400
> Michael, if your stance on Gnome is that coding the core system
> using C API is bad then I have the feeling there is a significant gap
> between your view and what I thought was the technical directions of
> the Gnome project. I understand that developing applications is better
> done using Bonobo, but I disagree with your opinion that it's the right
> API level for something as basic and core as a configuration system.
I do not think you understand.
Lets compare both GConf and Bonobo-Conf in this particular case:
Requires non-local daemon yes yes
Uses CORBA to talk to deamon yes yes
Is CORBA interface public no yes
Uses standard CORBA iface no yes (Bonobo/PropertyBag)
Has "simple" C API yes yes
Is it a "new" API yes same as PropertyBag.
Requires wrapping for yes requires CORBA binding
When I say above "Same as PropertyBag" it means that the API to use
Bonobo-Conf is the same API you would use to set, load and configure
properties in Bonobo (for example in Bonobo Controls, and is the same
stuff Glade uses for setting properties).
] [Thread Prev