Configuration API

[Avi Alkalay]

Maybe I get lost in translation, but I think I agree with your "configurable
is the *wrong* way". It can't make everybody happy. Specially in the level
discussed here (change notification, etc). And I think non-desktop software
are also important for this subject.

I'd like to have the chance to have you explain me better this part, in
private, if you have time.

Regards,
Avi


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Havoc Pennington" <hp at redhat.com>
To: "Thomas Leonard" <tal00r at ecs.soton.ac.uk>
Cc: <xdg at freedesktop.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2004 4:25 PM
Subject: Re: Configuration API


> On Tue, 2004-04-27 at 10:59, Thomas Leonard wrote:
> > If we make an API, then people can get started writing backends for it.
> > Eg, someone could make a gconf backend and all programs using the API
> > would get their settings stored using gconf. Someone else could make a
> > Linux Registry backend, or a D-BUS daemon, etc.
>
> If gconf and the D-BUS daemon and so forth already have pluggable
> backends, why would you layer an additional abstraction API on top?
>
> Or put differently, if you had the abstraction API on top why would
> gconf or the D-BUS thing be pluggable?
>
> IMO the lesson from gconf is "slightly too complex" and the lesson from
> straight to text files is "not quite complex enough" and the happy
> medium is in between. But refusing to choose one is inherently more
> complex than either alone. Making it configurable is the *wrong* way to
> compromise, it's design-by-committee yuck.
>
> Havoc