Re: GConf debate ... the hermenutical key.

[Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>]

ERDI Gergo wrote:

> 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?

At least Havoc have and I have agreed that the best way is to use the "gconf:"
moniker, and this makes this discussion totally useless. We use GConf as backend
- so where is the problem? The none GNOME application can use GConf.

- Dietmar