dconf: replace schema prefix "/desktop" with "/org/freedesktop"

dconf: replace schema prefix "/desktop" with "/org/freedesktop"


BUG=Issue#1512

[Peng, 2012-10-01 12:13:57]

On 2012/10/01 04:05:57, Daiki Ueno wrote:

lgtm

[fujiwara, 2012-10-02 09:13:52]

On 2012/10/01 12:13:57, Peng wrote:
> On 2012/10/01 04:05:57, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> 
> lgtm

I prefer sed to xsltproc.

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-10-03 00:53:16]

On 2012/10/02 09:13:52, fujiwara wrote:
> On 2012/10/01 12:13:57, Peng wrote:
> > On 2012/10/01 04:05:57, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > 
> > lgtm
> 
> I prefer sed to xsltproc.

I'm generally not a big fan of modifying XML files with non-XML tools, but yes
it works better for this particular case.

By the way, can't we change the prefix in the GConf schema?

[fujiwara, 2012-10-03 01:18:06]

On 2012/10/03 00:53:16, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/10/02 09:13:52, fujiwara wrote:
> > On 2012/10/01 12:13:57, Peng wrote:
> > > On 2012/10/01 04:05:57, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > > 
> > > lgtm
> > 
> > I prefer sed to xsltproc.
> 
> I'm generally not a big fan of modifying XML files with non-XML tools, but yes
> it works better for this particular case.

I don't like to append additional build tools to replace the prefixes.
I think the xsltproc can be disable with './configure --disable-doc' and sed
could be used as a base build tool in most distro build env.

> 
> By the way, can't we change the prefix in the GConf schema?

I'm not sure about it. Personally changing the prefix is ok in gconf but reading
the original bug, the request is happened to distinguish the gconf prefix?

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-10-03 02:03:23]

On 2012/10/03 01:18:06, fujiwara wrote:
> I don't like to append additional build tools to replace the prefixes.
> I think the xsltproc can be disable with './configure --disable-doc' and sed
> could be used as a base build tool in most distro build env.

OK, updated.

> > By the way, can't we change the prefix in the GConf schema?
> 
> I'm not sure about it. Personally changing the prefix is ok in gconf but
reading
> the original bug, the request is happened to distinguish the gconf prefix?

I think the original bug is just a kind of pedantic request and the difference
between gconf and dconf prefixes is not really necessary. That is the reason I
changed the priority to low.

However, for the time being I'd go with this CL since it would be safer than
changing the gconf prefix.

[fujiwara, 2012-10-03 02:09:00]

On 2012/10/03 02:03:23, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/10/03 01:18:06, fujiwara wrote:
> > I don't like to append additional build tools to replace the prefixes.
> > I think the xsltproc can be disable with './configure --disable-doc' and sed
> > could be used as a base build tool in most distro build env.
> 
> OK, updated.

I prefer that updated patch. Thanks.

> 
> > > By the way, can't we change the prefix in the GConf schema?
> > 
> > I'm not sure about it. Personally changing the prefix is ok in gconf but
> reading
> > the original bug, the request is happened to distinguish the gconf prefix?
> 
> I think the original bug is just a kind of pedantic request and the difference
> between gconf and dconf prefixes is not really necessary. That is the reason I
> changed the priority to low.
> 
> However, for the time being I'd go with this CL since it would be safer than
> changing the gconf prefix.

OK, I don't mind the gconf prefix.
I guess it might be useful to keep the gconf path when users upgrade ibus.

[fujiwara, 2012-10-30 06:28:28]

Probably I think you need to update make-dconf-override-db.sh and please test it
by yourself.

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-10-30 06:44:02]

On 2012/10/30 06:28:28, fujiwara wrote:
> Probably I think you need to update make-dconf-override-db.sh and please test
it
> by yourself.

Good point, fixed.

[fujiwara, 2012-11-06 05:41:18]

On 2012/10/30 06:44:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/10/30 06:28:28, fujiwara wrote:
> > Probably I think you need to update make-dconf-override-db.sh and please
test
> it
> > by yourself.
> 
> Good point, fixed.

lgtm

I'll add the below internal patch in f19 and will remove this patch in f18 or
lower.
http://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/20121106/ibus-xx-dconf-upgrade.patch

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-11-06 07:33:19]

On 2012/11/06 05:41:18, fujiwara wrote:
> On 2012/10/30 06:44:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > On 2012/10/30 06:28:28, fujiwara wrote:
> > > Probably I think you need to update make-dconf-override-db.sh and please
> test
> > it
> > > by yourself.
> > 
> > Good point, fixed.
> 
> lgtm
> 
> I'll add the below internal patch in f19 and will remove this patch in f18 or
> lower.
> http://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/20121106/ibus-xx-dconf-upgrade.patch

Thanks for the review, but for landing this, I'd think it would be safe to wait
until IBus has completely switched to GSettings.

Because ibus-dconf directly uses the Dconf library which uses the paths
("/foo/bar") as keys, while GSettings uses actual keys
("org.freedesktop.ibus.*").  If we change the path prefix this timing, that
means users will lose their settings.

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-11-06 07:56:06]

On 2012/11/06 07:33:19, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/11/06 05:41:18, fujiwara wrote:
> > On 2012/10/30 06:44:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > > On 2012/10/30 06:28:28, fujiwara wrote:
> > > > Probably I think you need to update make-dconf-override-db.sh and please
> > test
> > > it
> > > > by yourself.
> > > 
> > > Good point, fixed.
> > 
> > lgtm
> > 
> > I'll add the below internal patch in f19 and will remove this patch in f18
or
> > lower.
> > http://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/20121106/ibus-xx-dconf-upgrade.patch
> 
> Thanks for the review, but for landing this, I'd think it would be safe to
wait
> until IBus has completely switched to GSettings.
> 
> Because ibus-dconf directly uses the Dconf library which uses the paths
> ("/foo/bar") as keys, while GSettings uses actual keys
> ("org.freedesktop.ibus.*").  If we change the path prefix this timing, that
> means users will lose their settings.

Here is a "safer" migration plan I can think of:

1. assuming that we will eventually use "-" instead of "_" all the places,
change ibus-gconf to convert "_" to "-" internally, and remove the counter-logic
from ibus-dconf

2. replace "_" to "-" in all the keys that appear in the source code (*.c and
*.vala)

3. wait for GSettingsList available in the stable GLib

4. switch to GSettings and remove ibus-*conf

5. change the path prefix

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-11-06 08:01:40]

On 2012/11/06 07:56:06, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> 1. assuming that we will eventually use "-" instead of "_" all the places,
> change ibus-gconf to convert "_" to "-" internally, and remove the
counter-logic
> from ibus-dconf

Oops, typo.  'change ibus-gconf to convert "-" to "_" internally'

[fujiwara, 2012-11-06 08:45:45]

On 2012/11/06 07:56:06, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/11/06 07:33:19, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > On 2012/11/06 05:41:18, fujiwara wrote:
> > > On 2012/10/30 06:44:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > > > On 2012/10/30 06:28:28, fujiwara wrote:
> > > > > Probably I think you need to update make-dconf-override-db.sh and
please
> > > test
> > > > it
> > > > > by yourself.
> > > > 
> > > > Good point, fixed.
> > > 
> > > lgtm
> > > 
> > > I'll add the below internal patch in f19 and will remove this patch in f18
> or
> > > lower.
> > > http://fujiwara.fedorapeople.org/ibus/20121106/ibus-xx-dconf-upgrade.patch
> > 
> > Thanks for the review, but for landing this, I'd think it would be safe to
> wait
> > until IBus has completely switched to GSettings.
> > 
> > Because ibus-dconf directly uses the Dconf library which uses the paths
> > ("/foo/bar") as keys, while GSettings uses actual keys
> > ("org.freedesktop.ibus.*").  If we change the path prefix this timing, that
> > means users will lose their settings.

Probably I think ibus/conf/dconf does not have to be changed but ibus/data/dconf
needs to be changed.
The errors are not relative with dconf itself but asks not to use the paths in
gsettings.
Then whether we migrate to gsettings or not, the error needs to be fixed.
I'm not sure how the schema path in schemas file effects dconf or gconf.

> 
> Here is a "safer" migration plan I can think of:
> 
> 1. assuming that we will eventually use "-" instead of "_" all the places,
> change ibus-gconf to convert "_" to "-" internally, and remove the
counter-logic
> from ibus-dconf
> 
> 2. replace "_" to "-" in all the keys that appear in the source code (*.c and
> *.vala)
> 
> 3. wait for GSettingsList available in the stable GLib
> 
> 4. switch to GSettings and remove ibus-*conf
> 
> 5. change the path prefix

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-11-06 22:36:58]

On 2012/11/06 08:45:45, fujiwara wrote:

> Probably I think ibus/conf/dconf does not have to be changed but
ibus/data/dconf
> needs to be changed.

Yes, but that means user settings will be saved in different places.  This will
be more confusing and may break dconf-editor since it looks at gsettings schema
and saves the values with dconf.

> The errors are not relative with dconf itself but asks not to use the paths in
> gsettings.
> Then whether we migrate to gsettings or not, the error needs to be fixed.

Again, that is not an error but a warning.  Do you know when it will be
unsupported?  I couldn't find the schedule yet and thus don't see any urgency
for this prefix change.

[fujiwara, 2012-11-07 01:27:55]

On 2012/11/06 22:36:58, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/11/06 08:45:45, fujiwara wrote:
> 
> > Probably I think ibus/conf/dconf does not have to be changed but
> ibus/data/dconf
> > needs to be changed.
> 
> Yes, but that means user settings will be saved in different places.  This
will
> be more confusing and may break dconf-editor since it looks at gsettings
schema
> and saves the values with dconf.

I don't understand why you talk about dconf-editor.
I mean if we can keep /desktop/ibus for dconf but fixes the gsettings warning
only.
Even thought org.freedesktop.ibus.gschema.xml would be removed, I think
dconf-editor could works.

> 
> > The errors are not relative with dconf itself but asks not to use the paths
in
> > gsettings.
> > Then whether we migrate to gsettings or not, the error needs to be fixed.
> 
> Again, that is not an error but a warning.  Do you know when it will be

Since the path is deprecated, I think the request is to fix the problem and not
the problem if that message is a warning or error when it could be shown to the
customers for the distro.

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-11-07 01:46:30]

On 2012/11/07 01:27:55, fujiwara wrote:
> On 2012/11/06 22:36:58, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > On 2012/11/06 08:45:45, fujiwara wrote:
> > 
> > > Probably I think ibus/conf/dconf does not have to be changed but
> > ibus/data/dconf
> > > needs to be changed.
> > 
> > Yes, but that means user settings will be saved in different places.  This
> will
> > be more confusing and may break dconf-editor since it looks at gsettings
> schema
> > and saves the values with dconf.
> 
> I don't understand why you talk about dconf-editor.
> I mean if we can keep /desktop/ibus for dconf but fixes the gsettings warning
> only.
> Even thought org.freedesktop.ibus.gschema.xml would be removed, I think
> dconf-editor could works.

If the new org.freedesktop.ibus.gschema.xml is installed, user will see the path
/org/freedesktop/ibus/ on dconf-editor, and may set a value on the path.  It
will be surely saved on /org/freedesktop/ibus/ which ibus-dconf doesn't read. 
Doesn't it sound confusing?

> > > The errors are not relative with dconf itself but asks not to use the
paths
> in
> > > gsettings.
> > > Then whether we migrate to gsettings or not, the error needs to be fixed.
> > 
> > Again, that is not an error but a warning.  Do you know when it will be
> 
> Since the path is deprecated, I think the request is to fix the problem and
not
> the problem if that message is a warning or error when it could be shown to
the
> customers for the distro.

I don't think it's worth breaking the migration path to hide such a harmless
warning from the customers.

BTW, I uploaded a CL that revert ibus.convert change, that doesn't make sense if
we don't change the gconf schema path.

[fujiwara, 2012-11-07 04:22:45]

On 2012/11/07 01:46:30, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/11/07 01:27:55, fujiwara wrote:
> > On 2012/11/06 22:36:58, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> > > On 2012/11/06 08:45:45, fujiwara wrote:
> > > 
> > > > Probably I think ibus/conf/dconf does not have to be changed but
> > > ibus/data/dconf
> > > > needs to be changed.
> > > 
> > > Yes, but that means user settings will be saved in different places.  This
> > will
> > > be more confusing and may break dconf-editor since it looks at gsettings
> > schema
> > > and saves the values with dconf.
> > 
> > I don't understand why you talk about dconf-editor.
> > I mean if we can keep /desktop/ibus for dconf but fixes the gsettings
warning
> > only.
> > Even thought org.freedesktop.ibus.gschema.xml would be removed, I think
> > dconf-editor could works.
> 
> If the new org.freedesktop.ibus.gschema.xml is installed, user will see the
path
> /org/freedesktop/ibus/ on dconf-editor, and may set a value on the path.  It
> will be surely saved on /org/freedesktop/ibus/ which ibus-dconf doesn't read. 
> Doesn't it sound confusing?

OK, now I understood your problem.

Probably I think it's not a big problem when dconf path and gsettings path are
different. I don't see any documents about the path but the man page of
dconf-editor(1) explains it can show both path.
If users would like to show the dconf system path, users could run 'env
DCONF_PROFILE=ibus dconf-editor' ?
dconf and gsettings could update the different value by each other in the same
path.

> 
> > > > The errors are not relative with dconf itself but asks not to use the
> paths
> > in
> > > > gsettings.
> > > > Then whether we migrate to gsettings or not, the error needs to be
fixed.
> > > 
> > > Again, that is not an error but a warning.  Do you know when it will be
> > 
> > Since the path is deprecated, I think the request is to fix the problem and
> not
> > the problem if that message is a warning or error when it could be shown to
> the
> > customers for the distro.
> 
> I don't think it's worth breaking the migration path to hide such a harmless
> warning from the customers.
> 
> BTW, I uploaded a CL that revert ibus.convert change, that doesn't make sense
if
> we don't change the gconf schema path.

If we need to update dconf prefix too, it's an idea to postpone the patch as you
suggested.
However I also think it's a good chance to change the prefix since we update the
version to 1.5 and if we change the prefix, ibus 1.5 will support both '-' and
'_' in source codes for the back compatibility.

Regarding to the ibus path, personally I don't like to use either com.google,
com.googlecode, or com.github for the ibus path.
org.ibus may be good while the web page does not exist.
I wonder if we can create an alias page in www.freedesktop.org.

[Daiki Ueno, 2012-11-07 09:07:02]

On 2012/11/07 04:22:45, fujiwara wrote:
> Probably I think it's not a big problem when dconf path and gsettings path are
> different. I don't see any documents about the path but the man page of
> dconf-editor(1) explains it can show both path.
> If users would like to show the dconf system path, users could run 'env
> DCONF_PROFILE=ibus dconf-editor' ?
> dconf and gsettings could update the different value by each other in the same
> path.

Even so, it is still confusing.  I can easily expect that users will
claim like: "I've set /org/freedesktop/ibus/general/*, but it has no
effect!" and we will need to give advice.

> However I also think it's a good chance to change the prefix since we update
the
> version to 1.5 and if we change the prefix, ibus 1.5 will support both '-' and
> '_' in source codes for the back compatibility.

Do we really want to support both '-' and '_'?  If we care only
"source code", couldn't we use '-' everywhere (and convert it to '_'
in ibus-gconf as I said earlier)?

Personally, it looks more confusing to me that '-' and '_' are mixed
in the source code (like after recent switcher-delay-time change).

> Regarding to the ibus path, personally I don't like to use either com.google,
> com.googlecode, or com.github for the ibus path.
> org.ibus may be good while the web page does not exist.
> I wonder if we can create an alias page in http://www.freedesktop.org.

Agreed.

[fujiwara, 2012-11-07 10:28:22]

On 2012/11/07 09:07:02, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> On 2012/11/07 04:22:45, fujiwara wrote:
> > Probably I think it's not a big problem when dconf path and gsettings path
are
> > different. I don't see any documents about the path but the man page of
> > dconf-editor(1) explains it can show both path.
> > If users would like to show the dconf system path, users could run 'env
> > DCONF_PROFILE=ibus dconf-editor' ?
> > dconf and gsettings could update the different value by each other in the
same
> > path.
> 
> Even so, it is still confusing.  I can easily expect that users will
> claim like: "I've set /org/freedesktop/ibus/general/*, but it has no
> effect!" and we will need to give advice.

Probably I just can say to read the man page for that question and it may be
enough to document it in ibus wiki page.
Currently I don't think it's a problem because there is no document to recommend
the same path between dconf and gsettings?
I guess the schemas path in gsettings is provided for dconf-editor and my
understanding is, the original warning suggests to have the domain path for
gsettings but not for dconf.
It seems '/system/' is no problem in dconf:
https://live.gnome.org/dconf
I also think dconf-editor is a workaround and each application provides the
necessary settings in the owned UI for non-technical users.

> 
> > However I also think it's a good chance to change the prefix since we update
> the
> > version to 1.5 and if we change the prefix, ibus 1.5 will support both '-'
and
> > '_' in source codes for the back compatibility.
> 
> Do we really want to support both '-' and '_'?  If we care only
> "source code", couldn't we use '-' everywhere (and convert it to '_'
> in ibus-gconf as I said earlier)?

I also like to drop '_'.
I think we can make sure ibus framework to use '-' but I'm not sure if the ibus
engines could change the source codes easily.
I'm thinking if we use dconf/gconf, /desktop/ibus has been used and both '-' and
'_' can be worked in ibus 1.5 and if we use gsettings, org.freedesktop is used
and dconf/gconf are exclusively disabled in ibus 1.6? and additional API with
GSettingsList is also available.
And then we can fix the gsettings warning only without changing the dconf prefix
in ibus 1.5?

> 
> Personally, it looks more confusing to me that '-' and '_' are mixed
> in the source code (like after recent switcher-delay-time change).
> 
> > Regarding to the ibus path, personally I don't like to use either
com.google,
> > com.googlecode, or com.github for the ibus path.
> > org.ibus may be good while the web page does not exist.
> > I wonder if we can create an alias page in http://www.freedesktop.org.
> 
> Agreed.

[kitsadahatthapranom236, 2017-04-08 21:59:20]

On 2012/10/01 12:13:57, Peng wrote:
> On 2012/10/01 04:05:57, Daiki Ueno wrote:
> 
> lgtm

คิดถึง

[kitsadahatthapranom236, 2017-04-09 02:36:45]

ค