On Sat, Mar 09, 2002 at 11:12:22AM -0300, Daniel F Moisset wrote: > On Fri, 2002-03-08 at 14:01, Tommi Komulainen wrote: > > When > > I want to try some other mail client I only wonder why I have to do that > > all over again. Didn't I just configure a mail client? Why can't the > > applications share that configuration? > > > > Do you think something like this could be used in GNOME? I think it > > would significantly reduce the configuration effort of users. Diversity > > and having the possibility to choose are good, but when you have to > > repeat everything again and again for every choice, it becomes a PITA. > > I think it should be done at a lower level than GNOME. Because, for > example, i would like to set my desktop background at gnome, and then > have the same if one day i want to use kde, or windowmaker. I totally agree with the sentiment. It should be common to all platforms, not just GNOME. However, I don't think that a change of such scale is ever going to happen if you don't have working code to prove it actually works. (Existing systems already work, why break them?) Once it has been established (in GNOME perhaps?) maybe then there's a chance of wider adoption. And yes, there should definitely have to be an API for configuration settings. No more launch $EDITOR, wonder what the syntax was again, and so on. Why are all applications doing their own configuration parsers anyway? Remember, "Do one thing and do it well?" Anyone? :) Well, in console that is :-/ Well, in GNOME and KDE too, actually. Both of them have their own configuration API, don't they? Why are they separate in the first place? Wouldn't it be possible to remove the GNOME/KDE specific framework stuff and put the configuration handling in platform independent library and then wrap that library in the GNOME/KDE framework? GConf is a good thing, however. I'm happy if this could be adopted in GNOME, for a start. For console GConf brings just too many library dependencies, so I don't think it is ever going to be used in mutt, for example. Some lightweight file-based configuration library might do it. Then you'd just have to wire up GConf to use the same backend for the same parts of the configuration. Or something. > If you're interested, you can read it at: > http://www.grulic.org.ar/~dmoisset/lcf/doc/design.html I quickly glanced it through and it looks a lot like what GConf already does. The only things that I, with my limited knowledge about GConf, noticed is missing from GConf is the links. Not sure if that's even relevant, just define a common practice for defaults, or structure for common settings. The need for configuration translators and file locations are common regardless of the scheme used. That said, I think for now GConf is the right way to look at. If you have time, which you don't, maybe try to make the lightweight library. After all, the location of configuration files is not that relevant anymore if you have the library API. -- Tommi Komulainen Tommi Komulainen iki fi GPG 1024D/68388EE6 6FD6 DD79 EB38 BF6F 3533 09C0 04A8 9871 6838 8EE6
Attachment:
pgpJrRUtfnUc9.pgp
Description: PGP signature