> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 12:49:32 -0700, LuKreme <[email protected]> wrote:
>> On 25-Jan-2010, at 15:07, Nick Peelman wrote: >>> 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. I'd also counter that Thunderbird's primary issues are not related to its plugin architecture. Its a bad email client, on OS X, because it's not a properly confirming OS X application. I'm not advocating for or against everything being handled as a plugin, as I can see benefits to both sides, but just that wiping up "Thunderbird" as a generic case against plugins is disingenuous. It's more complicated than that. _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list List help: http://lists.ranchero.com/listinfo.cgi/email-init-ranchero.com
