Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config

[Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>]

Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com> writes: 
> What forking?  We have not forked GConf.  I would not have wanted to
> reuse GConf because of its architectural issues.  

bonobo-config has the same architecture nearly exactly. Which you
would know if you had surveyed prior art in this area.
 
In fact I should have a big credit in the bonobo-config docs "this is
a reimplementation of Havoc's GConf architecture using Bonobo-native
idioms."

> Not everyone agreed, and that is why GtkHTML and Evolution did drop
> GConf support (partially to its unstability and problems).

I have gotten zero bug reports on this. I'm genuinely interested in
solving any problems you had. I can't believe you just paid Dietmar to
work on something for months instead of reporting a bug. What a waste
of everyone's time.

And even funnier, I bet the issue was OAF running two gconfd or zero
gconfd, not even a GConf bug. Sadly no one has ever fixed OAF.

Well, Evolution can do as it likes, but using the standard config
system should be a requirement for inclusion in GNOME releases.

Havoc