Re: GConf (was Re: Balsa (cvs 07-27-2001) crashes on html mail)

[Ali Akcaagac <ali akcaagac stud fh-wilhelmshaven de>]

On 2001.07.29 14:39:46 +0200 Pawel Salek wrote:
> 
> On 2001.07.29 01:36 Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> > gnome_config in this case the old configuration file placed in
> > ~/.gnome/balsa
> > 
> > and
> > 
> > gconf the new way of gnome configuring which is placed in
> > ~/.gconf/<subdir>
> > 
> > where subdir is a directorytree with 'x' amount of subdirs and
> > another 'x' amount of gconf.xml files.
> > 
> > here an attached example of how gnome 1.4 and 2.0 prefereabely want to
> > store all configuration files :) here the way how nautilus uses
> > to store its configurations. instead one simple plain textfile you
> > get this.
> 
> Balsa does not yet used GConf for storing configuration. We would need to
> require gnome-1.4 then, at least. This step needs to be done, the question
> is: when (of course, having the GConf code ready cannot hurt). 
> 
> So, I would like to ask whether is gnome-1.4 common enough to make this
> transition now? (I have gnome-1.4 on all boxes that run balsa, but not all
> boxes I have under my control run it).

oh no jesus.......

i don't like the new gconf with all it's notification stuff. i had some
discussions about the the past days in either the #gnome and the #nautilus
channel. if balsa moves to that stuff then amen. the new gconf is the worst
thing i've ever seen in my life.

who wants all these unnecessary bloat of dirconsume and fileconsume on their
homedir for just replace a 8kb text config file.

-- 
Name....: Ali Akcaagac
Status..: Student Of Computer & Economic Science
E-Mail..: mailto:ali.akcaagac@stud.fh-wilhelmshaven.de
WWW.....: http://www.fh-wilhelmshaven.de/~akcaagaa