On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 14:30 +0100, Bastien Nocera wrote: > On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:41 +0100, Alberto Ruiz wrote: > > 2009/4/2 Ross Burton <r...@burtonini.com>: > > > On Thu, 2009-04-02 at 13:20 +0200, Andre Klapper wrote: > > >> * Still to discuss: dconf vs gconf. This is not yet covered by > > >> this plan, but crucial to discuss (as gconf depends on > > >> Bonobo) > > > > > > There is gconf-dbus, the long-standing port of GConf to DBus that > > > Imendio did for Maemo. Moblin also ships it and it shouldn't be *too* > > > difficult to merge it back[1]. > > > > My understanding on this after talking with Richard Hult, is that > > there is no GConf maintainer, and the DBus port is a huge hack and not > > really suitable for the main branch, and that a proper merge would > > need a lot of work. > > Is it more or less work than finishing the replacement, and porting all > the apps and developer documentation, as well as writing porting > documentation?
I add another question here, as a complete dconf/GConf newbie: is depending on Bonobo/Corba vs DBus the only thing that makes GConf not useful towards GNOME 3.0 or are there some other design/preformance/whatever issues requiring a full rewrite to be solved? We learned, with the GIO transition, that porting lots of applications isn't fun, and is something which takes much time to be completed project-wide. As GConf is probably even more widely used than gnome-vfs was, porting could be an even bigger effort. Ciao, Cosimo _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list desktop-devel-list@gnome.org http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list