Re: The technical rationale

On 16 Jun 2001, Havoc Pennington wrote:

> Yes, that's fine. All I want is for apps to use the moniker that wraps
> GConf. And I'd suggest a generic moniker name such as "defaultconfig:"
> or something instead of "gconf:" so we can swap out different config
> implementations later, and app developers don't have to care about the
> backend.

Do we really need to support more backends on the wrapper level? I think
it'd make more sense to put all the pluggable backends thing into GConf
and force the bonobo wrapper to use it -- that way, when a new backend
comes out, GConf-only applications can take advantage of it as well.

   .--= ULLA! =---------------------.   `We are not here to give users what
   \     \   they want'  -- RMS, at GUADEC 2001
    `---= cactus cactus rulez org =---'
Ébrenlét: unalmas időszak két szunya között

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