Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- From: Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>
- To: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>
- Cc: 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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 02:44:43 -0400
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 10:25:15PM -0400, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Why have GConf at all then ? it adds extra bloat, adds an extra
> API that encourages bad practice 'C' API creation, and devalues the
> platform.
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.
Yours,
Daniel
--
Daniel Veillard | Red Hat Network http://redhat.com/products/network/
veillard redhat com | libxml Gnome XML XSLT toolkit http://xmlsoft.org/
http://veillard.com/ | Rpmfind RPM search engine http://rpmfind.net/
Sep 17-18 2001 Brussels Red Hat TechWorld http://www.redhat-techworld.com
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
