Re: [GD-General] A portable preferences library

[J C L. <cl...@ka...>]

On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 12:42:12 -0800 
Colin Fahey <cp...@ea...> wrote:

> Basically, I'm a strong believer of the settings following the
> application around.  I think the old MacIntosh operating system hid a
> kind of directory system behind the application icon -- with the
> "resource fork" and "data fork", which was a pretty good idea because
> it allowed data associated with a program to be bound to the program.

Windows allows this as well under NTFS ala extended attributes, tho it
is not commonly used.  Linux allows extended attributes under Ext[23]fs
but not ReiserFS or XFS IIRC.

> Maybe I'm hard-core, but I think everything an application needs to
> operate, short of the absolutely guaranteed resources of the operating
> system, should be packaged with the application -- and totally
> portable.  

In the case of user preferences this violates the model of segmented
access rights and patterns as it requires that users have write access
to the installation point the application.  Stackable filesystems are
one way around this, but are extremely unlikely to be widely deployed.
Logical view based filesystems are a possible address if you insist on
the model, but that's even further out.

> I should be able to run any application on anyone's computer from my
> keychain memory device, without adding any files to their computer!

Limited execution environments, be it capability systems, trusted
computing, or execution models will be and often already are the first
hurdles there.  If the OS physically won't allow execution of a file
which is not on a pre-configured trusted device...

> I think multi-user systems is an antiquated concept.  

<shrug> And yet they are becoming more common.

> But if I must support multiple users of a single application (as
> opposed to each user installing his or her own copy of the
> application), then individual preferences files can be stored with the
> application.

Which in turn requires write access to the installation location.  Not a
winner.

> Lots of irresponsible developers don't do a good job of
> un-installation -- or somehow the application disappears from the
> computer without un-install ever happening, leaving tons of scattered
> junk behind.

There are two disparate concepts: removing access/configuration data
from a user, and removing the entire application from a system.  They
are different and disjoint.  Removing an application from a system in no
means that each user's configuration data must also be removed (well,
not unless you want some extremely unhappy users).  

> I think rather than pushing itself upon one's computer (like a formal
> installation procedure), applications should be passive and the
> operating system should instead scan for applications upon boot-up.

Quibble: My desktop boots perhaps twice a year if that...

-- 
J C Lawrence
---------(*)                Satan, oscillate my metallic sonatas.
cl...@ka...               He lived as a devil, eh?
http://www.kanga.nu/~claw/  Evil is a name of a foeman, as I live.