Re: GConf debate ... the hermenutical key.

[ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org>]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dietmar Maurer wrote:

> > I can see why a GNOME and only-GNOME application might be better off using
> > *A* CORBA based API for configuration access. For others, gconf sounds a
> > lot better solution ('cause you just need to pull in less non-native
> > code).
> 
> Isn't libgnome the core part of GNOME. I thought we are talking about how to
> access configuration values inside libgnome, and all other libs above???

So you want to make GConf work on any platform as long as that platform is
GNOME?

I think Sander is taking non-GNOME applications into consideration. Now,
if this was about starting from scratch, arguments like "Bah, that would
make implementing it take a lot more time, just put it into GNOME for now"
would make sense, but here we have an _existing_ technology that can
readily be used by non-GNOME applications. Why would you want to lose this
feature?

Any replies along the lines of "if our configuration mechanism is good and
is available only for GNOME apps, it will force others to develop for
GNOME and this is a win for us" will make me sad. Very sad.

-- 
   .--= ULLA! =---------------------.   `We are not here to give users what
   \     http://cactus.rulez.org     \   they want'  -- RMS, at GUADEC 2001
    `---= cactus cactus rulez org =---'
Fekete lyuk: Isten nullával osztott...