Hi Shawn, > If you've written several searches (I have) you've had to. If you've > written any 'functional' searches (I have) then you'd see how much > more appealing it is to add *some* code to the core to enable the rest > of the code you write (and everyone else writes) to be as minimal as > possible. Before I found pareArgs I was doing it all myself - what a > waste of space!
Amen! Now I better understand what you're advocating, and I agree. I definitely think DQSD needs a more well-defined interface toward search authors and add-in authors, so core functionality is available to them. I'm not sure how to best realise this, and I'm a little pressed for time at the moment, there's a lot going on in my other (non-OSS) life :) Also, deciding on what actually is core functionality might become interesting, there seem to be a couple of different views on this, but it's nothing we can't figure out. Thanks for clarifying, Kim ------------------------------------------------------- The SF.Net email is sponsored by EclipseCon 2004 Premiere Conference on Open Tools Development and Integration See the breadth of Eclipse activity. February 3-5 in Anaheim, CA. http://www.eclipsecon.org/osdn _______________________________________________ DQSD-Devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dqsd-devel
