Yes, a big +1 from me. This bullet has to be bitten. S.
On Jun 3, 12:27 am, "Chris J. Davis" <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree, +1 especially with having the schema on the wiki for us all > to review. > > On Jun 2, 2009, at 8:00 AM, rick c wrote: > > > > > On Jun 2, 8:15 am, Owen Winkler <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Ali B. wrote: > >>> I think we'd need to hold on to Plugin for a little Longer. We may > >>> get > >>> to a point were we need something implemented in plugins only. If we > >>> switch now and need that in the future, we'd need to break plugins > >>> again. This sure is a possibility. > > >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, rick c <[email protected] > >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > >>> Since info() is the only thing left in Plugin at the moment, > >>> am I > >>> correct in concluding this means that Plugin can go away > >>> completely? > >>> Which would also mean that all plugins should derive from > >>> Pluggable, > >>> and also need rewritten? > > >> The Plugin class is used for more than just a container for its > >> methods. > >> Being derived from the Plugin class denotes a certain status that > >> is > >> used by the rest of the code. > > >> Owen > > > Ok. I look forward to the schema. It's a change that's been needed for > > a while. > > > Rick --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
