On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:49:32 -0700, LuKreme <[email protected]> wrote: > On 25-Jan-2010, at 15:07, Nick Peelman wrote: >> Aaaand you just made John's point for him. "features" get relegated >> to plugins, then forgotten. Welcome to Thunderbird. Enjoy your (5 >> minute) stay. > > > I don't think we are thinking about plugins in the same way as > Tbird/Firefox. Most of these plugins are going to be written by the same > people writing the app.
Actually, I think it's a lot like Firefox, from what little I know of that project's development style... the idea being that you want to support a powerful plugin architecture from the start, so you build much of the application itself using the plugin APIs - eating your own dog food, as they say. It doesn't mean these "core" plugins are anything that can be disabled, just that they are no more priveleged - feature, performance, etc - than what a third-party could build as an optional plugin. I don't think it means that core functionality goes stale, gets ignored, or can even be (easily) disabled. It just means that when you tell third-parties they can build plugins, you're less likely to look like an asshole because they crack open your SDK and find out it's severely limited. -R _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
