Re: dbus and GNOME 2.8

[jamie <jamiemcc blueyonder co uk>]

On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 18:33, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 17:36, jamie wrote:
> > On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 16:58, Paolo Maggi wrote:
> > > On Mon, 2004-04-05 at 17:25, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> > > > A Seg, 2004-04-05 s 14:25, Paolo Maggi escreveu:
> > > > > Hi guys,
> > > > > 	as I wrote in
> > > > > http://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel-list/2004-January/msg00495.html
> > > > > I'm working on a new implementation and a new API for egg-recent that I
> > > > > hope to have ready in time for 2.7.0 or 2.7.1 so that it can be
> > > > > evaluated for inclusion in 2.8.
> > > > 
> > > >   BTW, is there a reason why recent files isn't just a gconf key?
> > > > 
> > > >   Regards,
> > > 
> > > >From http://www.gnome.org/projects/gconf/ :
> > > 
> > > "Do not store anything but preferences in GConf. Documents, session
> > > state, random data blobs do not belong in GConf. Stuff breaks if you do
> > > this. Moreover, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT IT'S EVEN POSSIBLE TO WRITE
> > > TO THE GCONF DATABASE. Which means you may not use GConf as an IPC
> > > mechanism or when it's required to be able to store a piece of data."
> > > 
> > > Ciao,
> > > Paolo
> > 
> > Isn't it about time Gnome adopted and standardised on an RDBMS to help
> > solve all these data storage problems?
> 
> 	Its not a data storage problem. The problem relates to the fact that a
> system administrator may choose to change
> 
> xml:readwrite:$(HOME)/.gconf
> 
> 	in /etc/gconf/2/path to
> 
> xml:readonly:$(HOME)/.gconf
> 
> 	in order to lock down a user preferences.

Okay but we still have the problem of saving non-Gconf data. Do we
really want to have a host of different storage methods and repositories
or do we want to standardise on one system that handles all our needs?


jamie.
 


> 
> Cheers,
> Mark.
> 
>