Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> I haven't been complaining about bonobo-config much because I thought
> we were using it as a GConf wrapper. However now it turns out that
> isn't true, that we are using the bonobo-config flat XML file.

No one wants to use the flat XML file for that purpose, thats simply wrong.

> I'm not at all convinced that's a good idea.
>
> > What's so special about this desktop-wide notification stuff that bonobo-config
> > cannot do this ?
> >
> > Desktop-wide notification means that an app can get a callback if some config
> > value changes, even if another application changed it, right ?
> >
> > This already works in bonobo-config with any backend which is not a shared
> > library.
>
> With code that's O(n) in the number of listeners, among other issues.

AFAIK bonobo config contains a server side event filter, which reduces network traffic. As opposed to
the GConf approach, where you send most changes through the wire.

> And a completely unscalable XML backend.

The xmldirdb backend is at least as scalable as the GConf one.

> The database needs to be a database stack, to allow system defaults,
> overridden by user settings,

bonobo config can handle this.

> overridden by mandatory systemwide
> overrides.

I don't think we need that.

> GConf already handles this. Notification in this case is
> quite tricky, especially if you want it to be fast.
>
> I don't think BonoboConfig is fundamentally bad, it is more or less
> the same thing as GConf made "Bonobo-native" instead of "G*-native".
> But I don't think it's remotely as well-tested, documented, or

I have to agree that the code is newer, not as well tested and we need more documentation.

> thought-through as GConf at this point in time.

but it is thought-through.

- Dietmar