Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Michael Meeks <michael ximian com> writes:
> >       I'm sorry you feel that way - this is a technicaly motivated
> > decision, albeit perhaps obscured by a desire not to see Havoc's GConf
> > design severely criticised publicly.
> >
>
> I'm happy to have it criticized. Please do so. Though I bet I can do a
> better job than you. You guys don't understand the design space if you
> think bonobo-config and GConf are even significantly
> different. Dietmar pretty much copied the GConf design exactly.  Look
> at ACAP or LDAP or the Registry if you want to get an idea how
> differently it could have been done.

Hi Havoc,

no one claimed that we have invented a new database design. But we have
done a complete reimplementation.

> I'm still waiting to be shown the "stack of databases" code claimed to
> exist in bonobo-config so I can criticize in turn, I hope you'll show
> me where that is.

See bonobo-conf/idl/Bonobo_Config.idl:

  void addDatabase (in ConfigDatabase default_db, in string path)

This is sufficient for many usage scenarios. And a backend is free to
implement a more complex schema (like GConf).

> I hope you'll highlight which of your criticisms require a
> reimplementation rather than a wrapper interface to solve them.

Bonobo config makes it possible to write fully functional backends with
less code, because it uses existing code from bonobo. This code reuse leads
to less complex code, which is easier to maintain and to test. That is the
reason why I want a native "gconf:" moniker, and not a wrapper. Anyway, if
this is not possible for various reasons, we can still use the wrapper.

- Dietmar