Re: The technical rationale

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
   \     \   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]