Re: The technical rationale
- From: ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>, GNOME hackers <gnome-hackers gnome org>, gconf-list gnome org
- Subject: Re: The technical rationale
- Date: Sun, 17 Jun 2001 00:32:22 +0200 (CEST)
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
\ http://cactus.rulez.org \ 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]