Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes: 
> 	I'll assume if you have argued for months that CORBA is bad in a
> public forum, remonstrated with the authors, discovered that they had no
> intention of integrating their work nicely with the platform. Then I would
> expect to see an alternative implementation to CORBA, if it was in fact
> not all talk and no action.
>

If you're implying that you did this for the bonobo-config
reimplementation then bullshit. We discussed a wrapper and it
addressed all the issues that were raised. I specifically asked for
things a wrapper wouldn't solve on numerous occasions and the only
response was some mumbling about possible performance issues.  There
has never been any discussion or mention of incompatible
reimplementation or any rationale for doing that given. The only
discussion was about a wrapper, and as I've said over and over and
over I have no objection to a wrapper.

> 	Especialy if the people doing the re-write had put a lot of actual
> hacking work into Gnome 2.0.
> 

If you're implying I haven't done any work, maybe you want to look at
GConf itself, GTK 2, the original gnome-libs 2 hacking (port to
pixbuf, GConf support, etc.), and so on.

Oh wait, only hacking on Bonobo counts as hacking. Sorry. I'm on the
"GTK team" at "Red Hat" not in the GNOME Project. I guess I'm
"against" you all. I'll go join Microsoft now, silly me.

Havoc