On Sa, 2005-12-10 at 14:53 +0000, Jamie McCracken wrote: > Philip Van Hoof wrote: > > Hi there, > > > > Today somebody asked an interesting question about it (in private) and > > the recently started Portland project is also a good reason why to > > repeat some stuff. > > > > Its cool you are still perservering with this. > > A few thoughts - is it the schema thats holding up consensus? > > As a developer, I would apreciate needing minimal effort to implement > schemae (ie they should be concise and involve minimal typing). It would > help if you could show if this is the case with your proposal as Im sure > a lot of developers will give it the thumbs up if so. > > The API looks good and usable. So I take it the plan is for each desktop > to implement its own daemon and config library which meets that spec. > > Im not sure where deconf fits into this? Are you still planning to > create a desktop neutral daemon which would be very hard and time > consuming with all the abstractions (threads, modules, mainloop et al)?
I don't think this is important at all. After all, we've never been enemies and everybody feels nice with a working solution. We'll see GStreamer adoption of KDE, and I feel perfectly fine with using Qt software as a daemon, taken that beginning with Qt4, there is also available a non-GUI library QtCore [1]. Whatever technology is picked to write the first usable daemon should be used. If people still feel like using two daemons, we could at least merge the parsing-related code. [1] http://doc.trolltech.com/4.0/qtcore.html -- Christian Neumair <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ xdg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xdg
