On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Thomas Worrall <[email protected]> wrote: >> 11) "that can be a plugin" is a trap unless you design the plugin API first >> or damned close. > > +1.
+2 Performance and Features do not have this inverse relationship people seem to think they do. There are for-shit implementations of some features that can bring apps to their knees, yes, but that's the developers' fault. Given the braintrust this app stands to have behind it, I don't think designing a wrapper for various plugins is a good idea. You end up with a bunch of plugins that work haphazardly together and have to be continually maintained outside of the progress of the app, not to mention conflicts, precedence, etc. I'm not against a solid plugin architecture, mind you, but John's thoughts echo my own here; pushing what should be streamlined features out to plugins breaks up the coherence of the app. -nick -- Nick Peelman [email protected] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
