KConfig

[Martijn Klingens]

On Friday 10 January 2003 01:45, Benjamin Meyer wrote:
> Well this is a double edge sword.  Changing versions would have the
> opertunity for some settings to change without the user knowing, but
> doesn't that normally happen anyway and is almost expected as features are
> added/removed/changed.  In most all cases changes made to the system would
> only improve the default values of the application to something more
> sensible.  In the end I still think that it is worth it and ok to do.

What might be more useful, but a lot harder to code, is to distinguish between 
implicit and explicit 'default' settings. If I click the Defaults button in 
KControl, or if never actually changed a setting myself I'm using the 
default, and the default will migrate with me to a new setting whenever I 
upgrade.

If I did explicitly set something, like when going back from another setting, 
I'm using a hardcoded setting instead, which should be preserved when the 
default changes.

The backend side of this isn't even too hard to code, but the GUI side is. A 
checkbox becomes a tristate (yes, no, use default), where 'use default' 
should also make it clean what the default actually is; a radio button will 
get another setting 'use default' and mention what the default is, etc. This 
will get messy REALLY soon, so I dropped the idea quite a while ago.

All in all the current system ain't bad at all, though at times it comes to 
haunt you.
-- 
Martijn