apenwarr at nit.ca
Sun Dec 12 03:49:35 EET 2004
On Sat, Dec 11, 2004 at 05:13:05PM +0100, nf wrote:
> This is definitely a cool idea! "Less is more" or "one library is better
> than many" certainly is true for config-libraries like it is for
> I would start with evaluating whether gconf could serve as a backbone
> for the KDE configuration classes.
This is a solved problem. UniConf can already store gconf keys in KConfig
and vice versa. We have frontend/backend replacements for both. For that
matter, UniConf also recently grew an optional transaction layer so it
should now cover all Alan Cox's earlier suggestions. But all that put
together is just theoretically nice: there is no reason to "switch" a config
system to UniConf right now.
This is because the real tricks are the other things Avi talked about:
common semantics for colors/themes/images/mime handlers/etc. It's fine to
store everything in the same config database, but if you store everything
*twice* in that database, you're still not quite there.
More information about the xdg