An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

Sean Middleditch elanthis at
Fri Apr 8 03:14:04 EEST 2005

On Thu, 2005-04-07 at 19:28 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote:
> I agree that we can ask admins to learn stuff if we need to do it for
> other admin benefits, or we can even add end user benefits at the
> expense of admins, but I don't think transactions are interesting enough
> to justify this since they don't really have big benefits for either
> desktop user or admin.

Every single use case I can think of where transactions are really
mandatory aren't for desktop applications, but for system desktop
services.  Things like configuring the modes in would need
transactions to avoid frying your monitor.  However, DConf is more
concerned with stuff like "which of the already configured modes does
the user want to use" instead of "what are the various parameters of the
modes."  If DConf is only aiming for desktop apps, transactions aren't
of much use.

(Thought I'd clarify, since I was the one who originally pushed for
transactions when the DConf discussions started.  Sorry. ^^; )
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at>

More information about the xdg mailing list