Status of gconf -> dconf

[Bastien Nocera]

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.