jirka at 5z.com
Thu Apr 29 19:13:31 EEST 2004
On Wed, Apr 28, 2004 at 05:41:55PM +1000, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> <quote who="George">
> > wheras what really would be useful to be shared is the backend. That is,
> > GConf is already an API for GNOME and I bet KDE folks are just as happy
> > with their own API. As long as we can plug shared backends into the
> > native APIs then there is no need for an FD only API.
> The most troublesome bit is the configuration semantics wrt keys/values and
> schemas and so on - you're going to define all of that with the backend API?
> I'd be very surprised if the GNOME and KDE semantics were not incompatible
> to begin with.
But that does not matter much. As long as you don't expect to access weird
KConfig keys from GConf or vice versa. For keys that are to be common,
they'd have to share some semantics. Making sure we have the same
semantics would be nice, but I think pragmatically irrelevant. If the goal
is to be able to say use LDAP, then we can use LDAP even though KConfig and
GConf use it slightly differently. However from the sysadmin standpoint,
there should be a single place to say "I want everything to use LDAP on this
server." I think that's a reasonable goal. That I won't be able to set KDE
keys with gconf-editor? Who cares. IMO, that's a would-be-nice kind of
feature and not a requirement.
George <jirka at 5z.com>
History will be kind to me for I intend to write it.
-- Winston Churchill
More information about the xdg