Re: GConf - defaults.
- From: Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com>
- To: Havoc Pennington <hp redhat com>
- Cc: Michael Meeks <michael ximian com>, Elliot Lee <sopwith redhat com>, gnome-hackers gnome org
- Subject: Re: GConf - defaults.
- Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001 16:09:04 +0200
Hi Havoc,
I do not suggest to remove the ability to get default values from the
configuration engine. But what do you do when:
gconf_client_get_int (c, "user_level", ...)
fails? Do you exit the program? I suggested to do something useful instead.
- Dietmar
Havoc Pennington wrote:
> Dietmar Maurer <dietmar ximian com> writes:
> > I think there are several type of errors, for example:
> >
> > - the program does not find a default value at all (missing schema)
> >
> > - the backend delivers a value with a wrong type
> >
> > - something is wrong with the backend.
> >
> > IMO the program should always do something reasonable, and its not
> > much work to implement that.
> >
>
> I agree you have to handle "wrong type value" and "backend is hosed"
> since admins can easily cause that. But the obvious way to handle
> those is to fall back to the default.
>
> That's why I think making defaults really dependable is the best
> route.
>
> Defaults in code is major major bad evil. How do you do that for
> settings that span pretty much all apps? (e.g. user level)
>
> The only sane way to do it would be to have a library function
> get_user_level() which handled the coded default. But talk about API
> bloat.
>
> And as I said, already we had several hard-to-fix bugs that we fixed
> for Red Hat caused by defaults out-of-sync (mostly between control
> center and other places). I consider this a genuine not theoretical
> issue.
>
> Havoc
>
> _______________________________________________
> gnome-hackers mailing list
> gnome-hackers gnome org
> http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/gnome-hackers
[
Date Prev][
Date Next] [
Thread Prev][
Thread Next]
[
Thread Index]
[
Date Index]
[
Author Index]