DConf configuration system
jub at sun.com
Thu Apr 7 16:56:09 EEST 2005
Patrick Patterson wrote:
> On Wednesday 06 April 2005 15:00, Jamie McCracken wrote:
>>If Uniconf is really suitable as a desktop config system then why are
>>some of us looking into creating an alternative like DConf?
> And your final question is what we've been asking ourselves for quite a
> while. :)
Whenever I looked for information about what Uniconf *actually* does
*today* and how it does it, all I found was a bunch of not very
organized and apparently (largely) outdated wiki pages.
As I was not willing to read a big pile of source code (throw in your
Stream package for good measure) I soon quit. Additionally it looked
like UniConf's primary goal was to provide infrastructure to wildly mix
and stack various existing bits and pieces instead of aiming for the one
successor to most of these pieces that can be used by all desktops (and
I think all this stacking and adapting can be a useful approach for
providing a unified administration interface for legacy configuration
data - particularly for system services. Here rewriting things to not
use their special configuration systems directly any more is huge work.
OTOH the 'front-end' part of this (i.e. adapters for existing client
APIs to talk to a DBUS API) could be useful, but here there wasn't
really any documentation at all - or I haven't found it.
To be a candidate for an XDG standard, clear documentation with detailed
semantics is surely required.
Joerg Barfurth Sun Microsystems - Desktop - Hamburg
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> using std::disclaimer <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
Software Engineer joerg.barfurth at sun.com
OpenOffice.org Configuration http://util.openoffice.org
More information about the xdg