xfconf VS libxfce4util Resource Config Files for configuration
OmegaPhil at startmail.com
Sat Apr 30 14:23:46 CEST 2016
I understand if you don't want to discuss this, but continuing:
Can't you implement a hierarchy by using structure in INI section
titles/groups, e.g. 'Default/DVI-0', also can be used in the settings
I get the feeling its not so much 'needs' but programmer 'wants', to
make things convenient to program etc, without paying attention to the
cost of its actual implementation ('oh look this random library/system
has already been created that has all sorts of bells and whistles, just
use that!'). Simplicity is supposed to be extremely important for
resource usage, debugging, control, etc.
GSettings uses XML and compiled schemas (!!!), and looks to be another
programming frontend to god knows what (I'm seeing 'backend' and dbus
mentioned in places), so definitely fails KISS.
On 30/04/16 12:47, flo.xfce at gmx-topmail.de wrote:
> The big advantage of xfconf is hierarchical storage. Just have a look at
> xfce4-settings-editor - how would you transform the display channel or
> xfce4-panel channel settings into an rc file? (Nevertheless an rc file
> can also be a valid choice, especially for plugns, which usually have
> only a few settings).
> The point here is: Different applications have different needs when it
> comes to settings storage. You can either use a big complex backend
> which tries to address all those needs or multiple lightweight backends.
> Have you looked at GSettings? Maybe its more to your liking.
> Kind regards
> On 04/30/16 12:56, OmegaPhil wrote:
>> I'm the maintainer of the XFCE4 Hardware Monitor Plugin , and I'm
>> currently reviewing how I maintain configuration for the plugin.
>> At the moment I use libxfce4util's rc file functionality, but I don't
>> like the separation between reading and writing when you open an rc file
>> (reading something and potentially writing a change based off that is a
>> normal thing).
>> xfconf appears to offer a more regular read/write approach (haven't
>> tried it yet), but looking into its implementation, immediately fails on
>> KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) - hugely bloated - XML, DBus, GObject,
>> probably other stuff I'm not aware of. The task is just to store and
>> retrieve a few bits of data into a simple text file, which is the UNIX way.
>> I'm aware of xfconf's ability to store more complicated data and a
>> hierarchy of data, but I don't need this. There is also the catch that
>> XFCE4 has already paid the price for the bloat, however that doesn't
>> dictate whether I should support it or not ('ethics').
>> Does anyone here have serious usage of xfconf, and can bring up good
>> reasons for using it over a normal configuration file?
>> Xfce4-dev mailing list
>> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the Xfce4-dev