xfconf VS libxfce4util Resource Config Files for configuration

flo.xfce at gmx-topmail.de flo.xfce at gmx-topmail.de
Wed May 25 01:09:49 CEST 2016

I thought this discussion had ended by now.
Every big project (and a DE, even a lightweight one like Xfce, is big)
has some dependencies. That is just how software development works.
Please take a step back from your egocentric views. Of course Xfce has
more features than you actually need, and relies on libraries that offer
much for functionality than is actually needed by the project. This does
not neccessarily make it "bloat". Those libraries and Xfce itself are
designed to be useful for many many people with a lot of different
needs. If you develop software not just for yourself but others,
wouldn't you try to make it useful for more users?
Aren't "malleable programs" products, too? That's the main idea behind
FOSS. Nobody is stopping you to fork them (for better or worse). But you
have to live with the consequences: possibly newly introduced bugs,
performance issues if you are not an experienced programmer, security
issues, no upstream support for fixing those issues. If you can deal
with them - fine. But most people simply cannot. They are users, not
developers. For them it's better to have more features than too few.
Annexing is really the wrong choice in vocabulary here. Whoever
"upstream" is - I guess you mean Glib/Gtk - don't force anybody to use
their libraries. It's a conscious choice by Xfce. There are other DE's
that choose not to depend on existing libraries (well clearly, there
will always be dependecies, I am talking about big ones like Gtk or Qt
here). Take Enlightenment for example. I remember reading a blog posting
from one of their devs when he described how much time the team had to
spend on library development before they actually started on the "real"
DE. This is a personal choice and for Xfce is has already been made.
So my try to end this discussion: Read the whole thread. Reasons for
using xfconf over rc files and reasons to use rc files over xfconf were
both given (xfconf here exemplarily for a central configuration
database). So who is the winner? It't the solution that pleases more
users, and I would guess that this is xfconf, simply because most users
want a single interface and don't hack rc files.
If you're not happy with that you can provide a patch for something like
this (I really didn't want to look up the API but I'm sure you get the
XfconfChannel *channel = ...
xfconf_load_config (channel, "property");
XfceRcFile *rc = ...
xfcerc_load_config (rc, "property");

On 05/24/16 22:55, OmegaPhil wrote:
> I understand, it just means XFCE has effectively been annexed by the
> upstreams (can't go off on its own to fight how it sees fit etc, abides
> by upstreams rules/decisions/directions etc).
> Good thing I don't work on a DE, I don't use 'products', I use malleable
> programs with the right to hack on them for the better.
> _______________________________________________
> Xfce4-dev mailing list
> Xfce4-dev at xfce.org
> https://mail.xfce.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce4-dev

More information about the Xfce4-dev mailing list