Dave Cridland [Home]
dave at cridland.net
Mon May 3 17:16:15 EEST 2004
On Mon May 3 14:20:50 2004, Sean Middleditch wrote:
> On Mon, 2004-05-03 at 04:53, Dave Cridland [Home] wrote:
> > Couldn't the application simply add a further member to each struct to be
> > used as a sort order?
> That would require the app to read in all the keys, sort them, and then
> select the index it wanted. I'm not sure this is something real apps
> actually need to worry about, though. Some examples of this scenario
> occurring in real life would be useful. If any exist. ;-)
The only instances I know of are related to ACAP storage of addressbook
entries, bookmarks, etc. ACAP supports structures - indeed, it *only*
supports structures - but it also supports server-side sorting and complex
searching, as well as supporting virtual scrollbar stuff, all of which makes
the point somewhat moot. And in any case, no application actually uses any of
these features in the wild anyway, as far as I know.
Aside from that, I seem to recall that Havoc got a few requests for structure
support in GConf at some point, but I've no idea what they were for, only
that they were rejected, and structures never supported. (Along with,
incidentally, binary data.)
Given that prior art in desktop configuration has not supported structures,
it'd be more interesting to find cases where the application developer wanted
structures, and has employed some workaround, then look to documenting that
workaround for the general case.
I did start to consider what could be required in order to sensibly support
structures. Server side sorting would be required, along with restrictions on
what a member of a structure could be - you wouldn't want structures of
structures, it just gets very messy, very fast.
But, although ACAP supports structures, I'd have to argue against them for
our purposes - I think it'll complicate the support enormously, and knock out
of the running several perfectly good contenders for backends.
I can't help but think that we have to, as our first priority, ensure that
GConf and KConfig can rapidly adopt whatever we decide on with a minimum of
fuss, otherwise we're whistling in the wind. While I'm a great fan of albino
pachyderms of all varieties, we've got a good opportunity to unify
configuration between desktops here, and it'd be a real shame if we made
requirements which prevented uptake.
More information about the xdg