Re: Status of gconf -> dconf

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

 



On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 12:54:40PM -0600, Chris Adams wrote:
> Once upon a time, Callum Lerwick <seg@xxxxxxxxxx> said:
> > Dude I'm going to blow your mind: The filesystem is a database. Locking,
> > atomic transactions and crash recovery (journaling), access control,
> > efficient storage and retrieval of data. Same set of issues.
> 
> 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?

I'm not convinced anybody sane stores configuration data with one
value per file.  Fine-grained per-configuration-entry access control
is a solution in search of a problem.  And "mandatory" configuration
entries for an application I start as myself is somewhat amusing from
a security point of view.

  OG.

-- 
fedora-devel-list mailing list
fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Announce]     [Fedora Kernel]     [Fedora Testing]     [Fedora Formulas]     [Fedora PHP Devel]     [Kernel Development]     [Fedora Legacy]     [Fedora Maintainers]     [Fedora Desktop]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Development]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]
  Powered by Linux