Jamie McCracken schrieb: > 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
If there is schema support and a gconf emulation API, we don't even need to write a new GConfEditor \o/ Stefan > > 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 _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
