Skip to content
This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 15, 2024. It is now read-only.

Gnome Integration: GSettings keyname lack #version and profile #775

Closed
rautesamtr opened this issue Jun 9, 2016 · 2 comments
Closed

Gnome Integration: GSettings keyname lack #version and profile #775

rautesamtr opened this issue Jun 9, 2016 · 2 comments

Comments

@rautesamtr
Copy link
Contributor

We should probably discuss possible solution for the lack of version and profile parts in GSettings keys.
Two possible solutions could be:

  • Assume that the first three subelements of a GSettings (e.g. /org/gnome/gedit) key will always name the application, where as keys bellow will be options. Then just add the /#0/current/ between both.
    • We would get keys conform to the Elektra convention
    • This will only works correctly if out assumption of the GSettings key names is met.
    • More complex string operation needed for conversion between GSettings and Elektra
    • No real benefit for GSettings as it does not really get any support of versions or profiles
  • Use cascading on #version and profile. E.g. a kdb set /org/gnome/gedit/preferences/editor/scheme "classic" should automatically write to /org/gnome/gedit/#current/current/editor/scheme and the corresponding read should read from that name. #version should always point to the highest version number. current to the default profile.
    • We still would have to assume which parts of the keyname are application name and which are setting names.
    • Rather complex solution
    • GSettings would get version support trough the Elektra backend.
@rautesamtr rautesamtr changed the title Gnome Integration: GSettings keyname Gnome Integration: GSettings keyname lack #version and profile Jun 9, 2016
@markus2330
Copy link
Contributor

profiles can be added by the profile plugin, i.e. as long as you honor the naming conventions, you automatically have profiles.

I think the version information would also be interesting for upgrading gsettings-binding itself.

@markus2330
Copy link
Contributor

The first solution seems to be better. Please reopen if there is any further open question or you find any new important details.

Sign up for free to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in.
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants