[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]

Re: Status of gconf -> dconf



 On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:43 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote: 
> On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 20:47 -0600, Callum Lerwick wrote:
> > On Mon, 2009-02-23 at 17:17 -0500, Colin Walters wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Don't get me wrong - GConf has some very bad design flaws (at least
> > > should have used something like Protocol Buffers instead of XML), and
> > > I'm not defending the weird dconf licensing.
> > > 
> > > But "let's just use lots of files" is not the answer.
> > 
> > So group your keys if too many files is such a problem. You know, like
> > we've been doing for decades. Config files are a Solved Problem, the
> > only problem here is people want to write some overwrought universal
> > library and make everything use it. While centralizing code is generally
> > a Good Thing, people seem determined to overthink and overdesign it.
> > Second system effect at its finest.
> 
> A modern configuration system needs:
> - strong typing of values
> - a way to set defaults and revert them
> - changesets to avoid races
> - notifications of changes
> - protection against data loss when two applications want to edit the
> same configuration (or configuration file)
 
I think you're confusing app configuration with a high performance
database.

Which is also a Solved Problem. MySQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, LDAP, gdbm,
db4, take your pick.

Stop overthinking it. Stop reinventing the wheel. We have more than
enough perfectly good wheels already.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]