Re: [G2R] Why is bonobo-config a 2.0 core library?

[Stephen Browne <stephen browne sun com>]

Damnit Michael,

this is why I was hesitant to send that mail in the first place. I guess
I knew someone could not resist the temptation to turn this into a b-c
vs gconf merit war.

I wont get involved in any such slagging match, I was only asking if 
there really was a need to include b-c in the core platform if nothing
core to the desktop is using it.  This doest not mean that I think b-c
is a work of satan!

My motive for asking the question is that I would like to have a clean
list of core libs. I dont think the list should include libs that are
not used (however good, useful, may be used in future, crack free or
well implemented they might be) especially since other libs that are
used are not in the core list but in the desktop list.

I'm looking at facts here, not architecture, not personal opinions of 
other peoples ability to design or code and I'm not looking to be
educated in the whole area of configuration.

One less library delivered means one less public API I have to document
as part of the platform and one less API I have to support=>cuts costs.
Call me selfish, tell me its not all about dollars, tell me I dont
have to deliver exactly what the community does, tell me its not really
that important, whatever, there is no need to be nasty about it.
   
>         I won't be there; sadly since I'm on holiday - so go for the
> discussion - lets make it really uneducated, like the last spate !

This is just nasty!  Im sure the release team didnt enjoy reading that
comment.  I do hope you enjoy your holiday though.  My wife is at me to 
book a weekend away somewhere so I must get that done soon.

> > I can't see anything in GNOME 2.0 that is (should) be using
> > bonobo-config so I'm wondering why it is defined as a core 2.0 lib. If
> > I missed something that is using it then let me know.
>  
>         It's extremely useful for any CORBA aware app - perhaps a
> scripting binding - without it you get to wrap the gconf API for every
> single scripting language; which just sucks.

I didnt ask if it was useful and never said that it wasn't.

>  	However it does need some considerable fixage, and do some yucky
> things with TypeCodes that might be good to hide inside the ORB.
> 
> 	I hope that libbonoboui will use uit to store its configuration in 
> due course to remove an explicit dependency on GConf, but for now it's 
> haced to use GConf - temporarily.

I hope that you get things sorted out eventually, but I am talking about
GNOME 2.0 which is due to beta in the first week on Dec and the
agreement is 'use gconf'.  Even Nat agrees  :)

http://mail.gnome.org/archives/foundation-announce/2001-November/msg00022.html

Stephen.