An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[P. Kaluza]

Patrick Patterson wrote:

>I think that where we (as in the UniConf/GConf/KConfig/ACAP/etc. authors) get 
>a bit nervous and excited is when someone says that we have to scrap 
>everything and rewrite from scratch .. as long as we can all use the 
>DBUS/Unix Domain Socket/TCP/etc. protocol to talk between the client and the 
>servers (a point that I will admit is still up for discussion - at least I 
>haven't heard everyone nodding and saying that is categorically the way they 
>are planning to go),
>
I think this is something we should clarify soon, and frankly, i believe 
we can all agree on this. It has been argued that change notifications 
are an requirement for most of the targeted user base, and FAM and 
friends provide no sensible, portable and scalable solution. Everybody 
with me so far ?

This leads, in my view of the world, directly to the _requirement_ of a 
daemon.
Anybody opposing this ?

This then leads to the aforementioned "DBUS/Unix Domain Socket/TCP/etc. 
protocol" between client and _first-tier-sever_ - note that this server 
could talk to other servers higher up in the hierarchy via LDAP or ACAP 
or other protocols - this is IMHO out of the scope of the current 
discussion.

So i _suggest_ (as others have before me) to adopt DBUS as the protocol 
for all client<->first-tier-server. This _is_ negotiagble, but please 
state your reasons. It is actually an implementation detail - but the 
one I'd like to see decided really really soon.


Bye,
  Philipp