Re: [Galeon-user] gconf and preferences (was: Galeon 1.3 comments (was: Re: Tab Open-ordering))

On Thu, 2003-04-03 at 00:27, Jonathan Koren wrote:
> On 2 Apr 2003, Tommi Komulainen wrote:

[ints as enums in gconf]

> You have to admit that this is a pretty crappy way of doing this.  These
> things should be gtype equivalent of enums (I know there's one, I just
> can't think of it's proper name) and gconf should render these gtype enums
> as a dropdown box.  This is a bug against gconf.

You're so right there, and even the gconf documentation says to *not*
use ints as enums.  And I think there was direct support for enums,
provided that you define your enums properly in your application.

But, what do you know, galeon1 used this crappy gconf schema and to be
compatible with g1 preferences, we just continue using them..  *sigh*

The gconf widget part is an interesting idea, actually.  Doesn't
strictly speaking belong to gconf itself, though, since it's
UI-independent.  Actually, it could be part of eel already.


> Just because it's validiated doesn't mean it's Validated.  Case in point.
> I tried to use gconf just now to disable gestures.  I mistyped "0" as
> "09", a common mistake when typing.  I didn't notice it and closed gconf
> to save the new value.  When restarted galeon The right mouse button did
> NOTHING.  The context menus didn't popup.  Gestures weren't enabled.  I
> didn't even notice an error thrown to the console.  IT JUST DIDN'T WORK.

Whoops!  Well, at least we're not indexing any arrays anymore with the
values we get from gconf without checking the bounds first :)


> I am willing to create a page that lists all the things (from a UI
> perspective) that are missing from 1.2 and 1.3.  I will even list which
> one should stay gone, which ones should still go, and which ones should
> come back in at least some form.  Each "controversial" change will have an
> argument why 1.3 should restore or remove the preference.  I'll post it to
> the web.  I'll post it to this list.  Everyone can take a look at it, and
> we can argue the points.

That would be great!  Thanks!


-- 
Tommi Komulainen                                 [email protected]
GPG 1024D/68388EE6    6FD6 DD79 EB38 BF6F 3533  09C0 04A8 9871 6838 8EE6

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQA+jBlLBKiYcWg4juYRAjX1AJ9Sb8aa2pNx1UxK6Bz13lM35j5xqQCgxGzT
h2N++AIHZNlmbLHj9/uYmI8=
=5kwU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----