Florin Andrei napsal(a): > Dan Williams wrote: >> It's also easier to auto-update GConf with new settings. The horror >> that is autoupdating, say, /etc/pam.conf or httpd.conf. _Every_ >> distributor gets killed by trying to issue updates that might have to >> automatically change httpd.conf, even if it's just a few lines, (even >> Apple!). > This is a very strong argument and it shows one of the biggest > weaknesses of the classic "edit by vi" model. Not really. It is not that much harder to write the equivalent code without GConf. To support upgrades, the application must 1) be able to read the settings in the original format 2) convert them to the new format 3) write them back in the new format. 2) doesn't depend on GConf availability. GConf helps with 1) and 3). Applications not GConf obviously already have 1). So the only difference is writing code that can write the current configuration as a configuration file (losing all comments in the process, exactly like GConf-using applications would). Writing this code should really not be _that_ difficult. When httpd changed the config format incompatibly and the httpd developers didn't write a config format converter, and when GNOME applications changed the used GConf schema and their developers did write a config format converter, the difference is mainly caused by the developer's decision, not by usage of GConf. Mirek -- fedora-devel-list mailing list fedora-devel-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-devel-list
