Am Samstag, den 05.12.2009, 17:14 +0100 schrieb arne anka: > > is actually the implementation of a feature wish, since developers > > wanted to have a way to express > > the startup order of subsystems and plugins -- now they do. > > to quote mr fischer: "i am not convinced." > the order should be determined by maybe a specifiy section like > [order] > # set order of subssystems > subX = 0 > subB = 1 > ...
Yes, that's another way to do it. > that way everybody immediately recognises the purpose of ordering and does > not need to look for non-existent documenation about the order of entries. http://git.freesmartphone.org/?p=cornucopia.git;a=blob;f=docs/frameworkd.conf.sample;h=5a37eaf0c19e742ceedfa607e5083538d4a11561;hb=42d2845b115792a7d304a5f6c9ac061f6ae2ecf5 > but i still don't get it. if a specific order is necessary, it should not > matter how the order in the config file is. if subX _has_ to be starte > before subB it must be inedependend of the config file (except the sheer > use/don't use). I disagree. I think you're assuming frameworkd.conf is a user-editable configuration which clearly is not the intention. Distribution integrators are supposed to edit frameworkd.conf, not users. And for those guys, defining the loading order by ordering the entries in the configuration file seems to work fine. -- :M: _______________________________________________ Smartphones-userland mailing list Smartphones-userland@linuxtogo.org http://lists.linuxtogo.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/smartphones-userland
