Status of gconf -> dconf

[Olivier Galibert]

On Tue, Feb 24, 2009 at 04:46:53PM +0100, Kevin Kofler wrote:
> Simo Sorce wrote:
> > The only files that are well structured enough to not be an impediment
> > are XML files
> 
> Why? What's wrong with plain INI-style files like the ones used by KConfig?
> They are also structured.

XML is cool and everything else is meh.  Wrap them in
<key>foo</key><value>bar</value> crap and they will be cool again,
you'll see.

See also: property lists.

The fundamental problem the *conf lovers love to forget is that
designing the configuration is important.  At least when it was plain
text files you could see whether your design made sense, even if some
people didn't seem to care (see f.i. cups).  Hiding the configuration
storage behind a key-based API has the detrimental effect of losing
the big picture, leading to a "I'll just add a key" behaviour ending
in a mess.  That mess is what makes cli configuration editors a sad
joke.  Not that the gui ones are much better, mind you.  Too many
programmers refuse to hear about use cases that are not theirs to make
decent interfaces, among other things.  The storage format issue is
minor in practice, if the design was decent you could turn it into
something bearable.

But I'm sure switching to dconf will solve all problems.  Or aconf.
Or ^conf.  Or...

  OG.