An analysis about a generic desktop application configuration management system

[Philip Van Hoof]

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
http://www.pvanhoof.be/