Re: The technical rationale
- From: ERDI Gergo <cactus cactus rulez org>
- To: Seth Nickell <snickell stanford edu>
- Cc: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>, 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 11:08:38 +0200 (CEST)
On 16 Jun 2001, Seth Nickell wrote:
> I'm inclined to say that the latter (making it flexible for the
> end-user) is *FAR* more important and that the former will only be a
> source of headaches. The monikers are cute in this situation, but the
> "flexibility" here may come at the cost of important flexibility at
> runtime.
But this is exactly why I said I think the plugins should be on the GConf
level -- I didn't mean they should be visible to the end-developers. GConf
should be the only one knowing about what backend it uses.
--
.--= ULLA! =---------------------. `We are not here to give users what
\ http://cactus.rulez.org \ they want' -- RMS, at GUADEC 2001
`---= cactus cactus rulez org =---'
I am in total control, but don't tell my wife.
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]