Conclusions and a compact list of requirements for deconf-spec
jamiemcc at blueyonder.co.uk
Sat Dec 10 16:53:10 EET 2005
Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Hi there,
> Today somebody asked an interesting question about it (in private) and
> the recently started Portland project is also a good reason why to
> repeat some stuff.
Its cool you are still perservering with this.
A few thoughts - is it the schema thats holding up consensus?
As a developer, I would apreciate needing minimal effort to implement
schemae (ie they should be concise and involve minimal typing). It would
help if you could show if this is the case with your proposal as Im sure
a lot of developers will give it the thumbs up if so.
The API looks good and usable. So I take it the plan is for each desktop
to implement its own daemon and config library which meets that spec.
Im not sure where deconf fits into this? Are you still planning to
create a desktop neutral daemon which would be very hard and time
consuming with all the abstractions (threads, modules, mainloop et al)?
Mr Jamie McCracken
More information about the xdg