elanthis at awesomeplay.com
Fri Mar 4 18:05:11 EET 2005
On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 16:59 +0100, Philip Van Hoof wrote:
> I don't think any deep integration with D-VFS is necessary. Perhaps it
> could be useful to once create a D-VFS 'plugin' to handle D-Conf keys as
> files on a filesystem. That way it wouldn't be necessary to write a
> gconf-editor equivalent. I'm not sure, however, that the D-VFS API would
> be suitable for using it as default way to get and store configuration
> keys. I think that would be a to deep integration of both systems.
I see this as pretty useless. Aside from, again, just being a "geek
factor" with little real utility, directly using the D-Conf API would be
FAR better for a configuration tool that trying to map configuration
operations to file-handling operations.
Again, if somebody really want to write a bridge, it could probably be
made to work just fine, but there's no good reason for it. If you want
to write an app targeting D-Conf, just use D-Conf. You'll then get to
use a simpler, easier, more efficient API for configuration management.
Just because you *can* do funky layering tricks doesn't mean you
*should* do it... ;-)
Sean Middleditch <elanthis at awesomeplay.com>
More information about the xdg