Conclusions and a compact list of requirements for deconf-spec

Jamie McCracken jamiemcc at
Sat Dec 10 16:53:10 EET 2005

Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> Hi there,
> Today somebody asked an interesting question about it (in private) and
> the recently started Portland project is also a good reason why to
> repeat some stuff.

Its cool you are still perservering with this.

A few thoughts - is it the schema thats holding up consensus?

As a developer, I would apreciate needing minimal effort to implement 
schemae (ie they should be concise and involve minimal typing). It would 
help if you could show if this is the case with your proposal as Im sure 
a lot of developers will give it the thumbs up if so.

The API looks good and usable. So I take it the plan is for each desktop 
to implement its own daemon and config library which meets that spec.

Im not sure where deconf fits into this? Are you still planning to 
create a desktop neutral daemon which would be very hard and time 
consuming with all the abstractions (threads, modules, mainloop et al)?

Mr Jamie McCracken

More information about the xdg mailing list