<tt>Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote on 04/07/2005 03:26:00 PM: > > Havoc Pennington wrote: > > If you dump the transactions requirement you can go back to text files. > > Using simpler text files is the major reason that KConfig is better than > > GConf for system administrators, so text files are a significant plus. > > > > This shouldn't be a problem. If you use a database you should have > utilities to import/export xml files from Stdin/Stdout. </tt> <tt>The point is that the proposed system is so complex that:</tt> <tt>1) It may never get written.</tt> <tt>2) It may never get adopted.</tt> <tt>Start with the basics.  What is the minimum set of requirements before KDE and Gnome will use DConf?  Implement this minimum set.  Prove that the minimum set works with a test suite.  Get the minimum set adopted by the desktops and applications.  Then, and only then, start working on the whizbang features.</tt> <tt>The minimum set is probably a lot less than you might think.  My belief is that transactions, stackable back-ends, and notifications are not required in round one.  Round two might see notifications.  Various back-ends can be adopted as needed at particular sites, but distributions are going to want to use a simple storage mechanism.</tt> <tt>chas</tt>