LinuxRegistry in Freedesktop & KDE

[Duncan Mac-Vicar Prett]

El Friday 16 April 2004 10:33, Sean Middleditch escribió:
> A system with the features of GConf *could* be developed for small
> systems.  Or maybe just designed to be much less desktop-specific.  A
> configuration system that is only good for a small number of apps (like
> Linux Registry) really isn't worth much, tho.  If you want a
> configuration system to be "standard", it needs to support all
> applications.

I never suggested to put LinuxRegistry as-is. You can implement features as 
change notifications, either in a small daemon, or via some kind of callbacks 
using fam in the api itself, maintaining the almost no dependencies goodness.
But th advantage is that apps whose don't need notifications, or whose don't 
want to use right now, still can access the configuration in a easy and 
direct way.

> And one wouldn't just want to have GConf use it as a backend, because
> that's time and effort spent that is pretty wasteful.  If we want it to
> be common, all apps should have the features.  If we're going to adopt a
> configuration backend, GNOME, KDE, GNUStep, Rox, etc. should all be able
> to use it, in addition to servers and CLI tools and whatever.  Linux
> Registry isn't capable of meeting the needs of real-world desktop
> systems, and I'd wager not even of a good deal of server apps (notice
> again that you must shutdown the server and modify the files or the
> server may over-write them).  Linux Registry has no policy on how to
> handle many important and common situations as it's nothing more than a
> basic "read/write some files" API with a crapload of hype slapped on top
> of it.

Still, I am not pushing it because its features or to replace GConf / KDE / 
others. I see it as an alternative to the current /etc dir.... additional 
features can be added in the same layer or in upper & desktop specific 
layers.

Duncan