Also I would imagine a dconf-editor app would not be practical without schemas especially for settings of type bool/enum where you want a checkbox/dropdown
jamie On Fri, 2009-04-03 at 09:20 -0400, Havoc Pennington wrote: > Hi, > > On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 8:27 AM, Vincent Untz <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le jeudi 02 avril 2009, à 12:31 -0400, Ryan Lortie a écrit : > >> This is honestly a problem space that I haven't spent too much time > >> exploring, but there are certainly possibilities here. > > > > Schemas are nice, IMHO, so it'd be nice to have people (not necessarily > > you) explore this problem space ;-) > > s/nice/essential/ > > Otherwise as soon as two pieces of code both use a setting, you're f*d > because you have to hardcode the default value in both places. So it > breaks the idea of process-transparency (or even of using a setting > from two places in the same process) if you don't have some single > place for the default value to live. > > pre-gconf we had loads and loads of bugs related to this, which is why > gconf addressed it. > > (the old gnome_config_* solution was whenever you got a setting, you > had to provide the default, so the default was effectively > cut-and-pasted in N places) > > Havoc > _______________________________________________ > desktop-devel-list mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
