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.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part