fso bug/oddity

[Michael 'Mickey' Lauer]

Am Wednesday 17 September 2008 19:07:50 schrieb Tilman Baumann:
> Michael 'Mickey' Lauer wrote:
> > It's important though that people
> > understand why we need all these abstractions. It's not because we love
> > high level interfaces, it's because we need to prepare for application
> > _integration_.
>
> Yea, but there are things which are already solved and people are used
> to work with them. Integration could well go over the top.
> As i probably already said. I like the effort, but some things are
> better left alone. :)
> Not that i have some spcific critique right now, but i could easyly see
> fso going in that direction. That's why i reacted this way in this case,
> i thought it had happened. *g*
>
> I see fso walking a fine line between genius and insanity. :)

Agreed. But you'll never know on which part you walk unless you start moving. 
That's what we're doing atm.

Please help us to stay on the genius' path ;)

> settingsd vs. gconf would be one of these cases. I just refused to
> really think about it yet, so i don't really know how much sense it
> makes. I think i would not like the outcome... (gconf is horrible, but
> it was there long enough to be considered a standard...)

Hmm, that doesn't count for me as a stopsign. First, gconf is already 
deprecated by the "powers" (with dconf being the dbus-based successor they 
work on), 2nd being a "standard" doesn't necessarily mean it should stay 
there forever unquestioned.

> pimd vs. eds the same...

Again, lets first concentrate on sane APIs (which is what the GSoc'08 project 
did) and then check whether any of the existing solutions fit our needs.

-- 
:M: