Re: I guess I missed the whole point

On Sat, 16 Jun 2001, Dietmar Maurer wrote:

> 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" ;-)

Why don't you just use the plugin system of GConf, and have a single
unified conf: (or whatever) moniker that uses GConf? Not one that either
uses GConf which has its own plugin system, or something else, thus
providing its plugin system as well, but one that uses GConf, period.

   .--= ULLA! =---------------------.   `We are not here to give users what
   \     \   they want'  -- RMS, at GUADEC 2001
    `---= cactus cactus rulez org =---'
Speak the truth, but leave immediately after.

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