Re: I guess I missed the whole point

Maciej Stachowiak wrote:

> On 16Jun2001 06:14PM (+0200), Dietmar Maurer wrote:
> > Mathieu Lacage wrote:
> >
> > > As maciej said it, revert everything and then discuss the problem.
> > > (Do I sound pissed ? Yes. I am bored of the same bullshit everytime
> > > someone makes a decision which is not his decision. This is so fucking
> > > recurent...)
> >
> > What do you want to revert? The only thing changed is that we access configuration
> > through the PropertyBag interface. That way we have removed the compile time dependency
> > on GConf, because it is no longer necessary. I can see arguments for using the "gconf:"
> > wrapper instead of something new, but I see no arguments for reverting that change.
> >
> Well, all properties stored by gnome-libs should, at the very least,
> get stored in the "gconf:" back end and not any other, for the sake of
> compatibility. I think this change is uncontroversial and can be made
> right away (I'll do it when my GNOME 2 build is done if no one beats
> me to it). Right now, all the gnome-libs settins are being stored
> using a different back end, meaning they cannot be accessed through
> GConf.

Maybe you have noticed that GConf does not build on Gnome 2. In order to work on Gnome 2
Martin has used the "xmldb:" moniker which works. Changing "xmldb:" into "gconf:" is really
no big deal.

> This is why I say having multiple back ends is a problem - it ruins
> the central configurability that is a must-have for large
> installations, and breaks the ability to access all config data via
> GConf which was a stated goal for GNOME 2.0. This is not just a
> theoretical problem in case someone uses one of the other back ends,
> but a problem in the actual code as it stands right now. I don't know
> what people were thinking in making the settins of gnome-libs itself
> not accessible through gconf.
> But, if we are using the GConf back end to bonobo-config in gnome-libs
> exclusively, then using bonobo-config is a pointless and gratuitous
> change, since it provides no benefits to gnome-libs (don't tell me
> about storing complex structured data - none of the preferences and
> settings that gnome-libs uses need complex structured data; don't tell
> me about multi-language access, because gnome-libs is written in C;
> and don't tell me the bonobo-config API is simpler and easier to use,
> because having worked both with GConf and the Bonobo PropertyBag
> interface, I can definitely say it's a matter of taste at
> best).

We try to use a single interface, namely the PropertyBag. Anyway, I am to tired to explain
why this is an advantage, so feel free to do whatever you want. We have the whole
infrastructure in libbonobo, and I will encourage anyone to use those interfaces.

> Therefore, the decision to add it to the gnome-libs dependency
> stack is completely gratuitous and should not have been done this
> close to the freeze.

You simply don't understand the whole thing. The bonobo-config dependency was only added for
Martins ditem moniker, which will be moved to bonobo-extra. There was never any plan to add
an additional bonobo-config dependency.

- Dietmar

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]