Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- From: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>
- Cc: Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>, Sander Vesik <Sander Vesik Sun COM>, Martin Baulig <martin home-of-linux org>, <gnome-2-0-list gnome org>, <gconf-list gnome org>, <gnome-components-list gnome org>
- Subject: Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- Date: 16 Jun 2001 11:41:44 -0400
Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> writes:
> There is a pretty extensive discussion on GConf-list and the
> gnome-components-list as to why we decided to implement a new
> configuration mechanism.
No, there was a discussion of why you decided to provide a Bonobo
interface to GConf. Go read the thread. Go read the first announce for
bonobo-conf. They are about a WRAPPER.
The reason I didn't take your patch is that no reason was given a
wrapper would not work. And you still have not given such a reason.
So don't even pretend your code forking was justified for technical
reasons until you can come up with one.
> * Another C API that needs to be wrapped.
It does not need to be wrapped by language bindings, because language
bindings can wrap your bonobo-config wrapper. i.e. bonobo-config as a
wrapper solves this problem.
Moreover, the reason I gave at the time you last brought it up:
GConf the C API is something we've already committed to supporting. So
there is nothing to be gained by breaking it.
> * No support for arbitraryly complex data, programmer needs to
> flatten out data structures.
Wrapper solves this.
> * Uses CORBA, shares with bonobo-conf the CORBA dependency,
> without actually commiting to a sane CORBA interface that
> can be reused.
Wrapper solves this.
> If people look at the code, you will see that Bonobo-Conf design is
> very nice, very clean and it is overall a better configuration system
> for the future.
I'm still waiting to be shown the "database stack" code so I can
I think the ability to have a default database stack is essential,
with e.g. workgroup-wide, company-wide, display-specific,
etc. defaults. For some reason you have consistently thought Evolution
should put its settings in ~/Evolution, but this entirely breaks the
goals of GConf and hoses sysadmins.
But anyway, I still haven't heard a reason that justifies
bonobo-config the REIMPLEMENTATION vs. bonobo-config the WRAPPER. You
guys seem to really, really miss this point.
] [Thread Prev