Re: GConf debate ... the hermenutical key.

[Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>]

On Mon, 18 Jun 2001, Dietmar Maurer wrote:

> > You have basicly offered no proofs for almost any of your claims, among
> > other things that it completely wraps the gconf api on the functionality
> > side, that it provides similar or superior error reporting and recovery.
> > It does not appear to have any test code (or for that matter, a place to
> > report bugs).
> 
> It seems that you ignore most mails, and missed some major points.
> 

You have offered no proofs - or even pointed people at the places where 
they could find these - you have only made claims. And there is *NO* test
code in it. Go work on the code, write docs, talk to Colm and Havoc and
other interested parties (and do take what they say into account) and
evangleise your solution among people. There should still be enough time. 

I pretty much think this topic has ended for the gnome-2-0 list,
implemenation details should be discussed on others.

> > Whetever I agree or not is largely immaterial - convince the app
> > developers - hells, for that matter, take the damn trivial time and post
> > an overview of where what and why (preferably taking the time to prove any
> > claims) to gnome-hackers and gnome-devel-list!!! For all anybody cares,
> > discussing configuration systems in gnome-components is the same as doing
> > so in giant-space-hamsters.
> 
> I have tried to explain what we want several times, but people like you are simply
                               ^^

Stop thinking of 'we' and start thinking of other people.

> ignoring that mails, don't know why. Maybe I must post them several times? So here
> is the mail I posted in the morning:
> 

That mail does in no way actually answer anything I was talking about. It
just poses rhetorical questions.

> 
> > I also thought we agreed on using the "GConf:" wrapper, and to use the
> > PropertyBag API to access the values. Unfortunately people still mix
> > different thing, and use the term bonobo-conf[ig] somehow improperly, but
> > that is maybe my fault. IMO there are two totally different things to
> > discuss. The more important one is:
> >
> > 1.) Which client side API should we use, either:
> >
> >         - GConf client API or
> >
> >         - The bonobo API (PropertyBag/EventSource/Monikers)
> >
> > Please consider the following before you write an answer to this mail:
> >
> >     - Please notice the term "client side"
> >
> >     - We still use the GConf backend, so you can do exactly the same
> > things as before
> >
> >     - It has absolutely zero influence to any existing application
> >
> >     - We want to use the bonobo API - we do not invent anything new.
> >
> >     - The only code required from the bonobo-config package is the
> > "gconf:" moniker. That moniker is only a few line of code, since its a
> > wrapper. And it is dynamically linked (moniker).
> >
> > So the question is relatively simple, and this question needs to be
> > decided now. Maybe we can find an answer to it without first founding an
> > architecture committee?
> >
> > So this was the question which needs to be decided now.
> >
> > Anything following is unrelated to the Gnome 2 release. The second
> > question is:
> >
> > 2.) What is the best way to implement a system like GConf?
> >
> > I prefer reusing existing code like bonobo, and I showed a way how we can
> > implement it (bonobo-conf). I simple don't like to work on totally
> > outdated code as found in GConf, and I think it needs a major cleanup.
> >
> > Anyway, lets first talk about the significant things raised in 1.)
> >
> 

	Sander

One day a tortoise will learn to fly
	-- Terry Pratchett, 'Small Gods'