Re: Pluggable settings daemon

[Jens Granseuer <jensgr gmx net>]

On 16.11.2007 13:48, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
 On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 13:29 -0500, William Jon McCann wrote:
> >  * The current settings daemon is only modular at the gobject level
> > [1].  It is all or nothing.  And it isn't clear that we want to have
> > all of these objects (eg. keybindings and typing break) loaded at the
> > login window.
> >  * At least to some people, the idea of GDM depending on
> > gnome-control-center may be undesirable.
[...]

> it makes a lot of sense, and if we are going to share it, I guess we
> could:
>
> - have the daemon in GDM
> - have the modules you need in GDM
> - have the other modules in gnome-control-center, and load them when the
> session starts.

That seems like an awkward setup, though, doesn't it?

If the daemon and some of the modules were in gdm, we'd suddenly
have a hard dependency on gdm in the desktop and it would become
impossible (or at least very hard) to run a Gnome session with
other login managers.

A lot of the stuff the daemon does is directly coupled to the
respective capplets, so I'm not sure separating g-s-d and the
modules from g-c-c makes a lot of sense, either. The major
result of such a move would be that in 90% of the cases we'd have
to release two modules in unison (g-c-c and g-s-d).

On the other hand, if I understood Jon correctly, gdm's dependency
on the settings modules is entirely optional. For some settings
(e.g. the MouseTweaks stuff) you need the settings module if you
want those features available in gdm, but if you don't need those
features, you don't need the settings modules, either.

Adding an optional dependency on g-c-c to gdm looks like the
best arrangement for those reasons. That way we can keep all
the settings-related stuff in g-c-c, but selected features could
be used from gdm as well.

> - would having g-c-c depend on GDM be ok?

I don't think so.

Jens