Re: GConf vs. bonobo-config
- From: Zbigniew Chyla <cyba gnome pl>
- To: Miguel de Icaza <miguel ximian com>
- Cc: Alex Larsson <alexl redhat com>, Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>, Havoc Pennington <hp redhat 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: Sat, 16 Jun 2001 11:20:45 +0200
On Sat, 2001-06-16 at 01:09:53, Miguel de Icaza wrote:
> (...)
> GConf has a number of problems in my mind:
>
> * Another C API that needs to be wrapped.
Oh great. Does it mean that you're going to rewrite GTK+, gnome-xml, etc.
(they're exposing awfull C APIs)?
You didn't even have to create a wrapper around GConf, you could just modify
GConf and expose CORBA API as another API (compiled optionally to make
non-bonobo people happy). As I understand, you _did_ prepare such patch, but
silly GConf maintainers rejected it, right?
> * No support for arbitraryly complex data, programmer needs to
> flatten out data structures.
Woow. You managed to store "arbitraryly complex data" in configuration files
without flattening out data structures. It's wonderful!
Zbigniew
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]
