On 2010-01-25, at 21:05 , John C. Welch wrote: > > On 1/25/10 5:54 PM, "Caio Chassot" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> I believe the part that worries you the most is the GUI, and I'm with you >> there. Plugins that try to mess around with the GUI suck. I think we'll have >> to define specific points where plugins can easily manifest in the GUI, to >> prevent a big pile of willy-nilly ad hoc crashing dung from ensuing. > > Wait, wait, wait. You want to push a gob of features that REQUIRE UI to > support them into plugins and then you say that plugins that try to mess > with the UI suck? > > Um...you gotta pick one.
The application will have to ship with a GUI, right? In fact, I say it'll provide most, if not all, of the GUI. And it may well happen through the plugin API, because of dog food and all, but they'll not be true plugins, in the sense that these parts of the application cannot simply be disabled/uninstalled. Because of that, or even, regardlessly, plugins may interfere with the GUI, it's just a generally bad idea. It's preferred that plugins use the provided UI slots. It eases plugin development and helps avoid teh crashy. If your plugin requires an entirely separate window, to do its business (eg. server filtering rules), that's its own NIB, the application has little to do with it, at this point we're just giving you an IMAP connection. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
