configuration system notes
dave at cridland.net
Thu Apr 7 18:42:19 EEST 2005
On Thu Apr 7 15:18:23 2005, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> - ACAP is a standard nobody uses, and is pretty different from
> the ideal design, so I see no reason it's interesting.
I find this last very funny. You must realise that GConf has nearly
all the basic features of ACAP, indeed it's simply a cut-down ACAP in
order to simplify it and reduce its scope, and add strong typing and
schemas - that's not a bad thing, you didn't want GConf to cover the
same scope as ACAP can, and you didn't need the power that increases
Now, I'm absolutely not suggesting that ACAP be "the" configuration
system[*] - for the vast majority of desktop applications - it'd be a
terrible idea to have a TCP/IP protocol in use for local
configuration - but to dismiss it out of hand as "pretty different
from the ideal" strikes me as rather foolish, especially when its
demonstrably so close to GConf in so many ways.
ACAP is absolutely worth looking at as a source of inspiration for a
new configuration system, especially as it's the only example you
gave which aimed to share configuration data between wildly different
applications, and aimed to make it easy to manage.
I'll admit I don't except most people to have looked at ACAP, I'm one
of very few people using it. But I think it'd be a real shame to
ignore prior art like this.
* - Thus making me almost the only person present to have both
written a configuration system and not suggested that it should
immediately be adopted as a full standard for everyone.
More information about the xdg