System- and Desktop-Conf (Re: D-Conf)
c.gatzemeier at tu-bs.de
Tue Mar 8 20:58:08 EET 2005
Yeah, depending from where you look at it, there are quite some differnces,
I've come to think.
Desktop programing types may have a nice API, a good feature set and one
back-end as goal for the d-conf in mind.
Sysadmin programing types (with interest for GUI/desktop support) may have
unintrusive support for many apps (file formats/semantics/backends) and easy
(or automatic) config-GUI generation as goals for the S-conf in mind.
Changing the backend (/etc/*)of many/all apps is probably not on the
wishlist, even less moving to a non-human-readable text file based approach.
Am Monday 07 March 2005 15:28 schrieb Joerg Barfurth:
> But if you have a frontend framework and a unified api for the actual
> parsing, generating and activation, then building a useful GUI for
> another system becomes much easier and may in many cases be done in a
> declarative fashion without requiring a C programmer.
Also much of the ever ongoing backend maintance work can be avoided and
distributed! when files/semantics are also defined in a declarative
non-hardcoded fashion. And that is part of the Config4GNU concept that has
those things you state explicitly in mind. If you're interested, you can find
more about it at
I've come to think though, that a "D-Conf" and "S-Conf" System will probably
not be integrated. At least very unlikely right from the start.
More information about the xdg