An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Jamie McCracken]

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> 
>>I'm all for everyone being polite, but reality is reality. The power
>>here is all with the core GNOME and KDE teams and if they say no, the
>>answer is no.
> 
> 
> You're right. And I apologise if I have upset people. 
> 
> Since you (and Avery) are right I decided to listen to his points. 
> 
> Perhaps, but only if glib is a _real_ problem, it's better to implement
> the daemon without using glib at all. 

It isn't a problem if KDE 4 are adopting Gstreamer which is glib 
dependent (and uses GObjects).

I doubt DConf would be adopted prior to KDE4 (or Gnome 3) due to the 
effort required in swapping over to a new system so I therefore cant see 
any technical reason to exclude glib from the daemon - feel free to give 
one if anyone has a genuine problem with it.

jamie.