A question that pops up with some regularity is whether libinput has a global configuration storage system, and, subsequently, why it doesn't have one. Comparisons are drawn to the X-specific tool xinput that allows to trigger all configuration options (see below though).
As maintainer of libinput, I can state that libinput will not get a configuration storage system. That job is squarely in the realm of the caller (i.e. usually the compositor and/or the desktop environment). Here are a few reasons:
First, you'd get conflicts with the caller. You need to prioritise which configuration has precendence to decide what to do when libinput and the caller disagree on a configuration item. You (the user) also have to figure why a configuration doesn't work when it's clearly enabled in one of those systems. Ok, so you can work around this by putting in a warning somewhere, provided that you make sure that the warning shows up in the right place and users know where to look. And to know when to send the warning, because again, that requires libinput to know which config has priority.
This is amplified by the lack of an autoritative support system. Speaking from X experience, the number of posts on, say, the ubuntu forums that advocate setting configuration options that haven't existed for years is quite sad. Or users advocate config snippets that set everything but the feature they claim it enables. That gets copy-pasted, etc.
Some configuration options can be incompatible with each other. If you have conflicting configuration systems it gets harder because each configuration system cannot make certain options an either/or anymore. We don't have any of these options just yet, but they may come in the future.
Over time, supported features will change. A setting may be exposed in the magic libinput config system and, a few months later, it is now also exposed by, say, GNOME. All the documentation that points to the libinput configuration is now obsolete because GNOME overrides it. Unless you're running version Foo.Bar, or maybe the patched version from $DISTRIBUTION. It gets messy quickly.
How fine-grained do you need the configuration? libinput's config API applies separately for each device. For most desktop environments it is sufficient to have configuration per device type (touchpad vs mouse vs tablet, etc.). But some exceptions may apply and a newer generic touchpad configuration may need to override device-specific older configuration. Because the newer config is designed around the new libinput version, but the older config is something you copied off a forum post from 2 years ago.
Oh, implicit in the request for a configuration system in libinput is usually also: please write and maintain that system for free, and fix any bugs in a timely manner. And I can't shake the feeling that a large number of these requests are only triggered by "my desktop doesn't expose this setting, if we get it in libinput I can force it into any desktop".
Ironically enough, the tool that is usually used as an example for how it could work is xinput. The only reason xinput works is because the xf86-input-libinput driver exposes properties and maps changes in those to the libinput API calls. i.e. everything is handled by libinput's caller, not libinput itself. Just as it should be.Lest I be accused of only shooting down ideas here is a constructive idea: write a library or DBus-daemon that exposes some configuration storage and makes it easy to query. Then convince the various desktop environments to use that system instead their existing solutions, and bang, you have a generic configuration storage system for libinput.