Re: Wrapping up

[Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>]

Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com> writes:
> > Another question is the used default configuration database, "gconf:" or
> > something else. But this belongs to another mail.
> >
>
> Sure. So if we use the gconf: database by default, then bonobo-config
> is a wrapper.

Yes.

> But to go back to the original starting mails in this thread, that
> means that GConf is _required_ for gnome-libs 2, not optional.
> configure should bomb out if you don't have it. Because users will
> lose all their settings if they install without it, and sysadmins
> won't be able to admin settings.

A normal user will not compile anything.

> Again, my objection is to incompatible config databases (xmldb,
> xmldirdb, etc.), not to our syntax flavor of the month (G*, Bonobo*).
> Reimplementation = bad, wrapper = fine.

OK, lets use the wrapper.

> Also, I would insist that we install GConf schemas for all our config
> keys. This is something that Nautilus really needs to do as well.
> I don't think bonobo-config as wrapper will currently successfully
> retrieve GConf docs? That needs fixing

Maybe, I have to take a look at it.

> I do also caution against putting CORBA_any in the config database,
> but that was extensively hashed out on gconf-list, and it seems people
> put programming convenience ahead of all other concerns on this point.
>
> Finally, I would make a general comment that we need to be working on
> usability and performance of the desktop as our primary goal.

Yes, that is one goal.

> Example:
> biggest current Nautilus performance complaint is opening a new
> window. Top of the profile for this operation is mucking around with
> UI handler XML nodes. But our current plan is to port e.g. Gnomine to
> the same UI handler code.  So why are we reimplementing GConf instead
> of fixing the UI handler?

the whole bonobo-config package is more than a configuration database, and I
think it is a big step in making Gnome easier to use.

- Dietmar