tir, 05 12 2006 kl. 11:23 +0100, skrev Thomas M Steenholdt: > Nicolas Mailhot wrote: > > > > What admin likes the g-conf storage format ? > > What admin likes the fact that unless you're careful gconfd will happily > > overwrite manual modifications because you've done them in vim and not > > (insert name of neutered GUI gconf tool there) > > > > I like XML but I'll take an old GNOME .ini conf file over a gconf one any > > day. > > > > Instead of being admin-friendly the gconf storage backend is > > over-optimized for developpers. > > > > Admins want/need stable schemas, sane file organization, stable > > formatting, pretty indenting, XML schemas registered in places vim and > > emacs can find them, safety of editing with whatever tool the admin likes > > best, no magic binary cookies use, explicit documentation > > > > Developpers want a system that can re-read conf files at blazing speed (so > > their app can read 20 times the same setting without impacting > > performance), with low change impedance (so they can stuff last-minute > > settings there or even change the format from version to version), and no > > hard documentation requirements (yay for burying configuration access in > > gconf-editor). They don't care if settings are not accessible without > > writing dedicated tools/scripts because writing code is what they do for a > > living. > > > > I wonder that anyone is surprised by the admin anguish over making a core > > infrastructure element depend on gconf. > > > > Agreed!!! Solution, fix gconf rather than complain over davidz and friends at least suggesting a forward minded solution to the horror that is "human readable" configuration files. - David Nielsen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dette er en digitalt underskrevet brevdel
-- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
