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

Re: Elektra's technical suitablity

Shane Stixrud <shane <at> geeklords.org> writes:

> On Sun, 2 Apr 2006, Avi Alkalay wrote:
> > I understand the value and importance of that, but I'm afraid this is
> > out of the Elektra scope.
> > Such semantics and functionality should go in a GConf or KConfig XT layer.
> >
> I can see value in a schema library that is optional and elektra aware for 
> non kde/gnome applications.  Something that encourages good semantics, but 
> I agree that should be separate.
If it is separate, how SHOULD application define variable type (schema)?

Wasn't the purpose of elektra to be able to easily "configure"? With data type
information ("schema") written in the registry, it gets much easier (and more
inituitive). Yes, you still have everything written as strings, but config
programs know automatically how to interpret it.

However it is also important to have available API to set that. I don't think
people should use separate library only to have variable type set up, it's
ridiculous. API should be extended to support type setting (and maybe variable
constrains, etc.) with simplicity in mind, because otherwise most application
writers will be likely to omit defining such information (another library just
to do that is exactly what shouldn't exist).

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