An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

CHonton at CHonton at
Thu Apr 7 22:44:10 EEST 2005

Jamie McCracken <jamiemcc at> wrote on 04/07/2005 03:26:00 

> > Havoc Pennington wrote:
> > If you dump the transactions requirement you can go back to text 
> > Using simpler text files is the major reason that KConfig is better 
> > GConf for system administrators, so text files are a significant plus.
> > 
> This shouldn't be a problem. If you use a database you should have 
> utilities to import/export xml files from Stdin/Stdout. 

The point is that the proposed system is so complex that:
1) It may never get written.
2) It may never get adopted.

Start with the basics.  What is the minimum set of requirements before KDE 
and Gnome will use DConf?  Implement this minimum set.  Prove that the 
minimum set works with a test suite.  Get the minimum set adopted by the 
desktops and applications.  Then, and only then, start working on the 
whizbang features.

The minimum set is probably a lot less than you might think.  My belief is 
that transactions, stackable back-ends, and notifications are not required 
in round one.  Round two might see notifications.  Various back-ends can 
be adopted as needed at particular sites, but distributions are going to 
want to use a simple storage mechanism.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the xdg mailing list