An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system
Philip Van Hoof
spamfrommailing at freax.org
Wed Apr 13 18:24:04 EEST 2005
On Wed, 2005-04-13 at 16:18 +0100, Jamie McCracken wrote:
> I doubt DConf would be adopted prior to KDE4 (or Gnome 3) due to the
> effort required in swapping over to a new system so I therefore cant see
> any technical reason to exclude glib from the daemon - feel free to give
> one if anyone has a genuine problem with it.
Other than the fact that we will need to wait for at least one dead
body :-), I know of none. But then again, I'm not a core KDE developer.
However. Don't forget that perhaps many good KDE/Qt developers wont be
interested in joining the implementing-it-fun if it's design is GObject
oriented. Is it worth excluding them? I'm not sure. And it seems to be a
maintenance hell for the KDE developers, to depend on a library which
they aren't maintaining themselves (Arts being an example).
So developer-acceptance is perhaps important.
Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at pvanhoof dot be
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com
More information about the xdg