Status of gconf -> dconf

[Michel Salim]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 1:54 PM, Chris Adams <cmadams at hiwaay.net> wrote:
> I'm with you for a lot of this, but I have to say that I don't think
> "atomic transactions" are a feature of general purpose filesystems.  If
> I store my configuration data with one-value-per-file, how do I
> atomically update multiple values?  How do I have a transaction that
> rolls back changes if changing value #9 of 10 fails?
>
NTFS now has this. Still does not fix the minimum-block-size problem,
though. And you'd probably still want a daemon to handle remote
updates.

-- 
miʃel salim  •  http://hircus.jaiku.com/
IUCS         •  msalim at cs.indiana.edu
Fedora       •  salimma at fedoraproject.org
MacPorts     •  hircus at macports.org