On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 05:59, Derek Atkins wrote: > linas linas org (Linas Vepstas) writes: > > I'm not sure what you refer to when you say "data types". > > If you mean using things like gconf, then yes, we should do that. > > Our current way of dealing with user defaults & etc. is homebrew > > and I see nothing wrong with moving to things like gconf type > > infraastructure. (right derek?) > > Yes and no. As you say, we have something that mostly works, so I'd > be hesitant to spend any precious resources on moving to something > else. OTOH I would have no objection to moving option storage from > our ad-hack[sic] mechanism to gconf, but keep in mind that some > options are stored in the data file, too (because they are data > preferences, not user options). So the UI needs the flexibility to > store options in either place. Agreed. My preference is to use common infrastructure wherever we can. As part of the gnome2 port I've put some things that into gconf that are data independent, like which columns are visible in a dialog or the column to sort on. I'd also like to eventually store data dependent information for these dialogs, like which accounts are expanded and which are closed, but this has to go into the data file so we can't use gconf for it. David
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part