Re: GConf debate ... - the ironic hub.

[Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>]

Hi Havoc,

On 19 Jun 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> The main reason we didn't make it public is to avoid creating
> confusion around Bonobo. Because we think people should use Bonobo. So
> we kept this topic in private mail.

	I was misled into believeing it was public knowledge perhaps by:

	http://www.europe.redhat.com/techworld/eventinfo_track1809.php3#03

	Anyway, water under the bridge. I'm glad we agree that people
should use Bonobo / CORBA, and that all future solutions will have
excellent compatibility.

	And I see that you could have got annoyed with me for going off at
a tangent - but can you see how my suspicions are aroused that an
anti-CORBA/Bonobo coup was going on:

		* Which ORB should we use ?
		* Should we use Bonobo-config in Gnome ?
		* Why not just go for Gtk+2.0 and GL 1.4 ?

	etc. Anyway, I'm most happy to be wrong on this. Clearly there is
no conspiriacy, and I'm a paranoid delusionary again. So, since we're all
re-focused on actualy getting GL 2.0 working, and there is no issue with
using CORBA/Bonobo extensively - lets carry on doing that.

	As for GConf - I have no problem with using it as the single
configuration backend, none at all, it seems to be more capable than
bonobo-config in some ways - perhaps I should have mentioned this. I
retain my objections to the GConf client API being part of the standard
Gnome include headers - I would prefer the C client API to be deprecated
and explicitely included if needed.

	Does that explain where I am / is that acceptable ?

	Regards,

		Michael.

-- 
 mmeeks gnu org  <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot