Philip Van Hoof spamfrommailing at freax.org
Sat Mar 5 15:17:04 EET 2005

On Fri, 2005-03-04 at 18:03 +0100, Mikael Hallendal wrote:

> If the only thing you intend to do is to rename the namespace for the 
> sake of removing the 'g' it sounds like a really stupid thing to do 
> since it will break all existing users of GConf, including all GNOME 
> applications just for the sake of pleasing some non-hacker kid.

> Since KDE will wrap this in some C++ layer anyway they can easily "hide" 
> the 'g' in the API in their wrapping layer if that's an issue. And 
> seriously, renaming things to get rid of a G just is silly.

The glib D-Conf layer can also do this. And by that create a binary and
source API compatible library for existing applications who don't yet
want to change to the new API namespace (for whatever reason).

And in all honesty.. s/gconf/dconf/g followed by s/GConf/DConf/g would
do the trick for 99.9% of all applications currently using GConf.

If we want to let the KDE-people start using GConf, we'll have to make
them feel good about it. Very good since they'll be adopting alien

If it's changing that G into a D is whats going to make them feel
better, then thats exactly what we'll have to do.

I even pronounce G as "GEEE" and D as "DEEE". So the pronunciation is
even very much the same. So really. I'm serious about this: If it makes
the kids of the other side of the desktop-world feel better about it.
Then thats exactly what we'll need to do. If I was (one of) the
author(s) of GConf, I'd be prepared to rename it IF it would mean that
it would strengthen the possibility of a cross desktop world.

I can only hope the authors of GConf are prepared for that to. I can't
force them .. But I'm sure that if not, D-Conf would need to be
rewritten from scratch .. yeah just for a stupid character. 

You will not sell "GConf" to the KDE people. I very convinced it just
wont happen. I am, however, convinced that you MIGHT sell "DConf". While
it will indeed be "exactly" the same.

A name is just a freaking name. Are you willing to give up on the idea
of a kick-ass cross desktop world for one character of the name??

Changes in the existing applications WILL be needed. Lots of. The KDE
applications will need MASSIVE changes. Try selling a generic
configuration system by telling them:

- You guys will basically need to rewrite 25% of your applications
- We won't need to do one single thing
- Cool don't you think?

They will say this to you: "Fuck off. KConfig works fine for us."

I know it's harsh to say it like this. 

And yes .. on a technical point of view it's sick, stupid, idiot and
foolish. And so what? If thats what it takes, I'll do it.

> If that is what stands in the way of KDE using it I don't think they 
> really want to use it anyway. I mean, for the people that will make 
> decisions in KDE I doubt it matters since they will look at the 
> technical part of it.

Not for those people indeed. 

> So, instead of proposing decorational changes I would suggest you 
> started lobbying to see:

Thats 'exactly' what I've been doing for the last two days on this

[CUT: An 'exact' description of what I've been doing for the last two
days on this mailinglist]

Philip Van Hoof, Software Developer @ Cronos
home: me at freax dot org
gnome: pvanhoof at gnome dot org
work: philip dot vanhoof at cronos dot be
junk: philip dot vanhoof at gmail dot com
http://www.freax.be, http://www.freax.eu.org

More information about the xdg mailing list