DConf configuration system

Hongli Lai h.lai at chello.nl
Wed Apr 6 23:38:09 EEST 2005

Patrick Patterson wrote:
> Actually, it uses whatever you tell it - it CAN use a "one file per key" 
> system, it CAN use an INI file, and it CAN use an SQL or even the Windows 
> Registry, or whatever GConf uses internally, or even an mbox, if that really 
> turns your crank -  - the backends are already written for most if not all of 
> those. It is THAT flexible... (and complete :) - And that's the nice thing 
> about it - it doesn't tie you into anything other than what you already use - 
> remember the mantra of UniConf is that it is better than everything else 
> because it already subsumes everything else. If you've seen Avery's dog and 
> pony show that he's done at a couple of conferences, you realize that it is 
> already possible to configure KDE from GConf over DBUS using the Windows 
> Registry to store the Data (why you'd want to do that last, I have no idea, 
> but someone around here was smoking the crack pipe one day, and wrote the 
> Windows registry front and back ends for UniConf, so they are available :)
> And your final question is what we've been asking ourselves for quite a 
> while. :)

I've been watching XDG for quite a while now, and experience shows that 
technology is not the problem - getting everybody to accept something, is.

UniConf sounds like a good system. The plugin/backend system allows 
everybody to chooce exactly what he wants, be it flat file or XML or ini 
or database or whatever. Is there any reason why anybody would not want 
to adopt UniConf as the XDG configuration system? I don't want to see 
yet-another-project getting ignored because of lack of interest. It's 
about time something happens.

More information about the xdg mailing list