Re: I guess I missed the whole point

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> >
> > The first point's goal is simply to stress that martin should not have
> > done what he did: this is not acceptable. There is no single person
> > deciding on the future of gnome-libs.
> I agree. I think Havoc should revert Martin's changes that replace the
> usage of GConf in gnome-libs with bonobo-config. It would be better
> still if Martin reverted it, but it sounds like he doesn't want to.
> Havoc, I don't think you should let people fuck things up just because
> you are polite and reasonable and like to discuss things and come to
> agreement beore acting, and certain other people don't.
> The plan we all agreed on or GNOME 2.0 was to use GConf, not
> bonobo-config. Changing the planned architecture in this major way
> without discussion is simply not acceptable.

I think you don't understand what bonobo config is. Lets assume we use the
"gconf:" moniker as default database in Gnome 2 (about 200  lines of code). You
then do not need to change anything in any application. All we want to do is to
access configuration data through the PropertyBag interface, and to use monikers
as plugin architecture. What is the big disadvantage of this approach? What is so
bad if we use/have a CORBA API to access configuration data. I can only see
advantages. Even Havoc calls it "syntactic sugar" ;-)

- Dietmar

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]