Philip Van Hoof
spamfrommailing at freax.org
Sat Mar 5 05:17:04 PST 2005
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 18:03 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:
> If the only thing you intend to do is to rename the namespace for the
> sake of removing the 'g' it sounds like a really stupid thing to do
> since it will break all existing users of GConf, including all GNOME
> applications just for the sake of pleasing some non-hacker kid.
> Since KDE will wrap this in some C++ layer anyway they can easily "hide"
> the 'g' in the API in their wrapping layer if that's an issue. And
> seriously, renaming things to get rid of a G just is silly.
The glib D-Conf layer can also do this. And by that create a binary and
source API compatible library for existing applications who don't yet
want to change to the new API namespace (for whatever reason).
And in all honesty.. s/gconf/dconf/g followed by s/GConf/DConf/g would
do the trick for 99.9% of all applications currently using GConf.
If we want to let the KDE-people start using GConf, we'll have to make
them feel good about it. Very good since they'll be adopting alien
If it's changing that G into a D is whats going to make them feel
better, then thats exactly what we'll have to do.
I even pronounce G as "GEEE" and D as "DEEE". So the pronunciation is
even very much the same. So really. I'm serious about this: If it makes
the kids of the other side of the desktop-world feel better about it.
Then thats exactly what we'll need to do. If I was (one of) the
author(s) of GConf, I'd be prepared to rename it IF it would mean that
it would strengthen the possibility of a cross desktop world.
I can only hope the authors of GConf are prepared for that to. I can't
force them .. But I'm sure that if not, D-Conf would need to be
rewritten from scratch .. yeah just for a stupid character.
You will not sell "GConf" to the KDE people. I very convinced it just
wont happen. I am, however, convinced that you MIGHT sell "DConf". While
it will indeed be "exactly" the same.
A name is just a freaking name. Are you willing to give up on the idea
of a kick-ass cross desktop world for one character of the name??
Changes in the existing applications WILL be needed. Lots of. The KDE
applications will need MASSIVE changes. Try selling a generic
configuration system by telling them:
- You guys will basically need to rewrite 25% of your applications
- We won't need to do one single thing
- Cool don't you think?
They will say this to you: "Fuck off. KConfig works fine for us."
I know it's harsh to say it like this.
And yes .. on a technical point of view it's sick, stupid, idiot and
foolish. And so what? If thats what it takes, I'll do it.
> If that is what stands in the way of KDE using it I don't think they
> really want to use it anyway. I mean, for the people that will make
> decisions in KDE I doubt it matters since they will look at the
> technical part of it.
Not for those people indeed.
> So, instead of proposing decorational changes I would suggest you
> started lobbying to see:
Thats 'exactly' what I've been doing for the last two days on this
[CUT: An 'exact' description of what I've been doing for the last two
days on this mailinglist]
Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at freax dot org
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com
More information about the dbus