On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 08:12 -0500, seth vidal wrote:
On Tue, 2009-02-24 at 10:43 +0000, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> For GConf, we were human editable and readable through gconf-editor, and
> greppable/diffable through gconftool-2.
>
> Either you're fueling a flamefest, or you don't understand what's
> required for a modern configuration system.
I'm not trying to fuel a flamefest, but it does seem apparent that you
do not understand the requirements of a modern network and shared
resource system.
If you want to know what things are common problems with a linux desktop
infrastructure in a shared resource environment ask on the list. There
are a good number of folks here who have to maintain resources for
hundreds of users, not just single users on a desktop/laptop.
I didn't say DConf, or the current GConf implementations were good, I
said that one-small-file-per-config-option is absolutely unworkable.
As for propagating new defaults, or mandatory options (like GConf is
able to do), I don't see how a one-file-per-option would solve that
problem.
I understand the requirements for networked resources, which is why the
solution mentioned above wouldn't work. inotify (and FAM before it)
won't work (properly) on (most) networked filesystems, locking is a pain
if you need to handle multiple processes accessing the same file from
different processes, etc.