Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Daniel Veillard <veillard redhat com>]

On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 04:11:04PM +0200, Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> Daniel Veillard wrote:
> 
> > On Sat, Jun 16, 2001 at 02:46:56AM +0200, Martin Baulig wrote:
> > > With GNOME 2, there are no "non-component based apps", Bonobo is integral part of the
> > > platform, so you always have bonobo-config in your app.
> >
> >   Martin, could you tell me then how a non-Gnome program would be able
> > to access some of the configuration options ? I have heard in the recent
> > past nice things like "we will share user options with KDE or other
> > desktops" and it seems things are been planned suddenly which will make
> > this pretty hard to do. Configuration is low level, it is owned by
> > the user, it should be easily accessible by tools outside of the original
> > context. How is this gonna work ?
> 
> You only have to link against libbonobo, which is very lightweight. So where is the
> problem?

   Quickly looking at libgconf and libbonobo installed on my system,
libbonobo looks quite larger (500KB vs 200KB) and requires oaf too (and
assuming they are loaded doesn't count in this use case). Both already
requires ORBit and glib too.

   But I think the problem lies in the fact that requiring to link to a
component system to access a setting look like using a truck to do the familly
weekly shopping (sounds american ? ;-). Now would you accept easilly to link
to KPart in order to share the setting from KDE, assuming you really have
to share them (say your customer requires that sharing). I'm pretty sure
there would be some resistance, right ? Maybe it's just psychologic...

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