Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for every message that comes in could get expensive. It should be possible to embed a perl interpreter into the code. You could enter an expression into a field, like the scheme expression in 1.08 that I've seen, that is to be evaluated for every message that comes in. The expression is evaluated into an 'anonymous subroutine' (perlism) that is executed on every message. An internal perl function could be provided that would 'get' the message text, or the headers, or whatever is available in the Evolution internals. A startup file in the evolution directory could load any Perl libs (such as Mail::Audit and Spam Assassin) that might be desired for processing incoming messages. On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 10:31, Johannes Berg wrote: > > Has anyone added a perl interpreter into Evolution? I would like to use > > perls "Spam Assassin" module to filter spam. > > > > If no one is currently taking this on, I'd like to get a CVS snapshot of > > the code and see about embedding the perl interpreter myself. > > Maybe the "filter to external program" could be extended to allow for > return values that trigger other actions (*) (unless, of course, it > already does, I'm not familiar with the current CVS) > > (*) I could envision that the program sets a return value other than 0, > and outputs something like this on stdout/stderr: > MOVE TO > DELETE > COPY TO > COLOR > STATUS > SCORE > etc for the current filter actions > > johannes > > ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
And I was wondering why I didn't see my own message on the list! Sorry for mailing to you directly, I only hit "Reply" without noticing that Reply-To: isn't the list. > Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for > every message that comes in could get expensive. Hm, yes, thats true, I didn't think of that. > It should be possible to embed a perl interpreter into the code. > You could enter an expression into a field, like the scheme expression > in 1.08 that I've seen, that is to be evaluated for every message that > comes in. The expression is evaluated into an 'anonymous subroutine' > (perlism) that is executed on every message. > > An internal perl function could be provided that would 'get' the > message text, or the headers, or whatever is available in the Evolution > internals. > >A startup file in the evolution directory could load any Perl libs > (such as Mail::Audit and Spam Assassin) that might be desired for > processing incoming messages. Sounds like an interesting plan, but soon others will cry "I want Ruby" or "I want Python" etc., so IMHO there needs to be some kind of pluging mechanism. Either way, I'm not an evolution hacker, just voicing opinions ;) johannes ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
> > Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for > > every message that comes in could get expensive. > > Hm, yes, thats true, I didn't think of that. Ok, well, didn't think of that before, but couldn't you simply have some kind of process running that accepts mails over a socket? Then you could still use the filter system thats already in-place, pipe the message to the socket, and send back the reply from that? Then it would save all the startup time while not putting everything into evolution... Anyway, its OK with me (personally) to put it in, but I can see how it might not fit the larger picture. johannes ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Evolution CVS has a means of piping messages to a process and getting back (via exit code of said process) a value which can be compared against to find whether or not you want to filter that message. At some point we plan on adding a scripting engine to Evolution so that users can implement their own "wouldn't this be cool" features themselves, so I'd rather not add Perl now only to remove it later in favour of some other scripting language. I'd prefer to do it once and do it The Right Way (tm). Besides, we will probably not want to use Perl anyway, we'd probably want to use something else (first off, I don't know perl and to me it's not a very attractive scripting language). I know Miguel is pushing for c#, which actually kinda sounds like the best idea. We've also looked at guile and python, but I don't think python's interpreter was threadsafe or something, and as far as guile goes, scheme is probably way over the average user's head. That said, this will still have to wait until at least after 1.4 is released, and possibly have to wait longer. Jeff On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 12:34, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for > > > every message that comes in could get expensive. > > > > Hm, yes, thats true, I didn't think of that. > > Ok, well, didn't think of that before, but couldn't you simply have some > kind of process running that accepts mails over a socket? Then you could > still use the filter system thats already in-place, pipe the message to > the socket, and send back the reply from that? Then it would save all > the startup time while not putting everything into evolution... > Anyway, its OK with me (personally) to put it in, but I can see how it > might not fit the larger picture. > > johannes > > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
> Evolution CVS has a means of piping messages to a process and getting > back (via exit code of said process) a value which can be compared > against to find whether or not you want to filter that message. Ok, I don't know much about the semantics of said feature because I only once tried a recent CVS version very short a while ago. > At some point we plan on adding a scripting engine to Evolution so that > users can implement their own "wouldn't this be cool" features > themselves, so I'd rather not add Perl now only to remove it later in > favour of some other scripting language. I'd prefer to do it once and do > it The Right Way (tm). Maybe you could have a look at The Gimp, which does it in some way that seems easily extensible with respect to language bindings. Probably something to do with their procedure database, but I'm not sure. Might well be overkill for the more simple tasks of mail management (well, I think its more simple than image manipulation anyway). But I can see that you wouldn't want to add some perl things -- most users would probably never use that "baggage". johannes ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
what about ruby? easy to learn, easy to code, OOP On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:05, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: Evolution CVS has a means of piping messages to a process and getting back (via exit code of said process) a value which can be compared against to find whether or not you want to filter that message. At some point we plan on adding a scripting engine to Evolution so that users can implement their own "wouldn't this be cool" features themselves, so I'd rather not add Perl now only to remove it later in favour of some other scripting language. I'd prefer to do it once and do it The Right Way (tm). Besides, we will probably not want to use Perl anyway, we'd probably want to use something else (first off, I don't know perl and to me it's not a very attractive scripting language). I know Miguel is pushing for c#, which actually kinda sounds like the best idea. We've also looked at guile and python, but I don't think python's interpreter was threadsafe or something, and as far as guile goes, scheme is probably way over the average user's head. That said, this will still have to wait until at least after 1.4 is released, and possibly have to wait longer. Jeff On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 12:34, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for > > > every message that comes in could get expensive. > > > > Hm, yes, thats true, I didn't think of that. > > Ok, well, didn't think of that before, but couldn't you simply have some > kind of process running that accepts mails over a socket? Then you could > still use the filter system thats already in-place, pipe the message to > the socket, and send back the reply from that? Then it would save all > the startup time while not putting everything into evolution... > Anyway, its OK with me (personally) to put it in, but I can see how it > might not fit the larger picture. > > johannes > > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers Roberto Moral SR. UNIX Systems Administrator - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Tel: 609-514-8513 | cell: 609-346-5601 Quantiva, inc. 100 Village Blvd. 3rd Floor Princeton, NJ 08540 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Except that c# is all those things too, and is also more likely to be known to users than ruby. Jeff On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: > what about ruby? :) > easy to learn, easy to code, OOP > > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:05, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > Evolution CVS has a means of piping messages to a process and getting > > back (via exit code of said process) a value which can be compared > > against to find whether or not you want to filter that message. > > > > At some point we plan on adding a scripting engine to Evolution so that > > users can implement their own "wouldn't this be cool" features > > themselves, so I'd rather not add Perl now only to remove it later in > > favour of some other scripting language. I'd prefer to do it once and do > > it The Right Way (tm). Besides, we will probably not want to use Perl > > anyway, we'd probably want to use something else (first off, I don't > > know perl and to me it's not a very attractive scripting language). I > > know Miguel is pushing for c#, which actually kinda sounds like the best > > idea. We've also looked at guile and python, but I don't think python's > > interpreter was threadsafe or something, and as far as guile goes, > > scheme is probably way over the average user's head. > > > > That said, this will still have to wait until at least after 1.4 is > > released, and possibly have to wait longer. > > > > Jeff > > > > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 12:34, Johannes Berg wrote: > > > > > Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for > > > > > every message that comes in could get expensive. > > > > > > > > Hm, yes, thats true, I didn't think of that. > > > > > > Ok, well, didn't think of that before, but couldn't you simply have some > > > kind of process running that accepts mails over a socket? Then you could > > > still use the filter system thats already in-place, pipe the message to > > > the socket, and send back the reply from that? Then it would save all > > > the startup time while not putting everything into evolution... > > > Anyway, its OK with me (personally) to put it in, but I can see how it > > > might not fit the larger picture. > > > > > > johannes > > > > > > > > > ___ > > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > > -- > > Jeffrey Stedfast > > Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com > > > > > > ___ > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > Roberto Moral > SR. UNIX Systems Administrator > - > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: 609-514-8513 | cell: 609-346-5601 > Quantiva, inc. > 100 Village Blvd. 3rd Floor > Princeton, NJ 08540 -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
You mean that Java like language from Microsoft? Maybe will be known as name, but on Unix/Linux platform hard to guess that is really used by somebodyand thus having experienceAnd i believe that any incidental user on this platform has the minimum in Perl knowledge. So, maybe we do a vote on this, whaddaya say? :) Cozy Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >Except that c# is all those things too, and is also more likely to be >known to users than ruby. > >Jeff > >On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: > > >>what about ruby? :) >>easy to learn, easy to code, OOP >> >>On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:05, Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >> >> >>>Evolution CVS has a means of piping messages to a process and getting >>>back (via exit code of said process) a value which can be compared >>>against to find whether or not you want to filter that message. >>> >>>At some point we plan on adding a scripting engine to Evolution so that >>>users can implement their own "wouldn't this be cool" features >>>themselves, so I'd rather not add Perl now only to remove it later in >>>favour of some other scripting language. I'd prefer to do it once and do >>>it The Right Way (tm). Besides, we will probably not want to use Perl >>>anyway, we'd probably want to use something else (first off, I don't >>>know perl and to me it's not a very attractive scripting language). I >>>know Miguel is pushing for c#, which actually kinda sounds like the best >>>idea. We've also looked at guile and python, but I don't think python's >>>interpreter was threadsafe or something, and as far as guile goes, >>>scheme is probably way over the average user's head. >>> >>>That said, this will still have to wait until at least after 1.4 is >>>released, and possibly have to wait longer. >>> >>>Jeff >>> >>>On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 12:34, Johannes Berg wrote: >>> >>> >>Launching a perl process that does alot of searching and evaluating for >>every message that comes in could get expensive. >> >> >Hm, yes, thats true, I didn't think of that. > > Ok, well, didn't think of that before, but couldn't you simply have some kind of process running that accepts mails over a socket? Then you could still use the filter system thats already in-place, pipe the message to the socket, and send back the reply from that? Then it would save all the startup time while not putting everything into evolution... Anyway, its OK with me (personally) to put it in, but I can see how it might not fit the larger picture. johannes ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers >>>-- >>>Jeffrey Stedfast >>>Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. >>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com >>> >>> >>>___ >>>evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>>http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers >>> >>> >>Roberto Moral >>SR. UNIX Systems Administrator >>- >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] >>Tel: 609-514-8513 | cell: 609-346-5601 >>Quantiva, inc. >>100 Village Blvd. 3rd Floor >>Princeton, NJ 08540 >> >> ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:04, Costin Cozan wrote: > So, maybe we do a vote on this, whaddaya say? :) With a "No scripting please" option, I hope. Richard. -- Richard Bellavance COGNICASE inc. Analyste-programmeur principal Hébergement, sécurité et réseaux T.: 514-732-8000 #4153 20, Place du Commerce F.: 514-732-8021 Verdun, Qc, H3E 1Z6, CANADA ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
that's exactly why we should vote. What is the most used ( or preferred) scripting language/system for evolution users? why could not be pluggable...? then you would have to maintain just the interface I am sure the moment it happens, next "day" we have a Evolution::[..] on CPAN..;) Aaah, good you reminded me of c# ; .NET is a platform where you can program or script in any language that supports. why not designing the same for Evolution?? Like making it the universal email tool? but, the dream finish suddenly...:) Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:04, Costin Cozan wrote: > > >>You mean that Java like language from Microsoft? Maybe will be known as >>name, but on Unix/Linux platform hard to guess that is really used by >>somebodyand thus having experience >> >> > >That will change. > i don't see that, sorry.Just tell me how i can program c# on my linux box... > > > >>And i believe that any >>incidental user on this platform has the minimum in Perl knowledge. >> >> > >I don't, and I know quite a few other Unix hackers who don't know perl >either. So you'd be wrong with this guess. > then they are not Unix hackers. [To all] Am I right? > >c# at least is OO and easy to learn. Not so with perl. > Just wondering, since when OO is simpler to understand and perl is hard? After 10 minutes reading a book of perl, you can already do major tasks. With OOP, you have to read a whole book ( ore more) just to get the idea. And yes, i am talking about normal persons using Evolution. However, i don't advocate Perl or any other preferred language. they all shoud have I am sure that there are other solutions that go better with other languages. And if in final C# will be the choice, then so be it. Hey, we could take the chance to learn it!! ;) Cozy ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 18:58, Costin Cozan wrote: > that's exactly why we should vote. What is the most used ( or > preferred) scripting language/system for evolution users? > why could not be pluggable...? then you would have to maintain just the > interface No, because the users won't be maintaining it, I will be. I don't care if everyone in the world wants perl, if I don't want it - it ain't gonna happen. > > I am sure the moment it happens, next "day" we have a Evolution::[..] on > CPAN..;) > > Aaah, good you reminded me of c# ; .NET is a platform where you can > program or script in any language that supports. why not designing the > same for Evolution?? Like making it the universal email tool? because it's more work? > > Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > >On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:04, Costin Cozan wrote: > > > > > >>You mean that Java like language from Microsoft? Maybe will be known as > >>name, but on Unix/Linux platform hard to guess that is really used by > >>somebodyand thus having experience > >> > >> > > > >That will change. > > > i don't see that, sorry.Just tell me how i can program c# on my linux > box... http://go-mono.net > > > > > > > > >>And i believe that any > >>incidental user on this platform has the minimum in Perl knowledge. > >> > >> > > > >I don't, and I know quite a few other Unix hackers who don't know perl > >either. So you'd be wrong with this guess. > > > > then they are not Unix hackers. [To all] Am I right? I guess this means that Evolution isn't a Unix application (a Unix application can't be written by non-Unix hackers, right?), in which case we should DEFINETELY not use Perl. case closed. (couldn't resist) > > > > >c# at least is OO and easy to learn. Not so with perl. > > > > Just wondering, since when OO is simpler to understand and perl is > hard? After 10 minutes reading a book of perl, you can already do major > tasks. With OOP, you have to read a whole book ( ore more) just to get > the idea. And yes, i am talking about normal persons using Evolution. What normal person can pick up regex in a day? No one I know can do regex without having to spend a DAY to figure out the regex they need to use for something except for maybe the simplest things. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: > what about ruby? :) > easy to learn, easy to code, OOP > For the record, perl does OOP as well. ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 19:27, Andrew E. Page wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: > > what about ruby? :) > > easy to learn, easy to code, OOP > > >For the record, perl does OOP as well. So does C > > > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 19:27, Andrew E. Page wrote: > > >>On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: >> >> >>>what about ruby? :) >>>easy to learn, easy to code, OOP >>> >>> >>> >> For the record, perl does OOP as well. >> >> > >So does C > > may i beg your pardon? I can't remember that...:) ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 19:54, Costin Cozan wrote: > Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > > >On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 19:27, Andrew E. Page wrote: > >>On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: > >>>what about ruby? :) > >>>easy to learn, easy to code, OOP > >>> > >> For the record, perl does OOP as well. > > > >So does C > > > may i beg your pardon? I can't remember that...:) What? You thought Evolution was written in c++? Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Dear Jeff, before we start ranting about OOP and programming, we should make clear some points. If somebody wants scripting, then we should use a scripting language, which at most is an interpreted language, not compiled. If somebody wants scripting, he knows what he is doing, so even Perl would make sense. If Jeff doens't want that language, or that language, because he thinks in this c#, we cannot do anything. But sooner or later, we will see if he had right or not. ok, am i sharp enough? Cozy ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Hello, > anyway, we'd probably want to use something else (first off, I don't > know perl and to me it's not a very attractive scripting language). I > know Miguel is pushing for c#, which actually kinda sounds like the best > idea. We've also looked at guile and python, but I don't think python's > interpreter was threadsafe or something, and as far as guile goes, > scheme is probably way over the average user's head. I would like to add that I have been pushing for the Mono runtime, not specifically C#. This opens a number of opportunities. The Mono runtime would allow people to use any programming language that targets the ECMA CLI to develop your Evolution extensions. Miguel. ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
its not a scripting language, its an app language, not suitable. On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 09:56, Miguel de Icaza wrote: > Hello, > > > anyway, we'd probably want to use something else (first off, I don't > > know perl and to me it's not a very attractive scripting language). I > > know Miguel is pushing for c#, which actually kinda sounds like the best > > idea. We've also looked at guile and python, but I don't think python's > > interpreter was threadsafe or something, and as far as guile goes, > > scheme is probably way over the average user's head. > > I would like to add that I have been pushing for the Mono runtime, not > specifically C#. This opens a number of opportunities. The Mono > runtime would allow people to use any programming language that targets > the ECMA CLI to develop your Evolution extensions. > > Miguel. > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 04:52, Richard Bellavance wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:04, Costin Cozan wrote: > > So, maybe we do a vote on this, whaddaya say? :) > > With a "No scripting please" option, I hope. its application scripting, not mail scripting. its safe. ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Sat, 2002-08-31 at 08:57, Andrew E. Page wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 13:45, Roberto Moral wrote: > > what about ruby? :) > > easy to learn, easy to code, OOP > > >For the record, perl does OOP as well. a pretty ordinary oo though. oop in perl sux more than in c. or assembly. ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 23:33, Andrew E. Page wrote: > Has anyone added a perl interpreter into Evolution? I would like to use > perls "Spam Assassin" module to filter spam. > > If no one is currently taking this on, I'd like to get a CVS snapshot of > the code and see about embedding the perl interpreter myself. We plan to implement an extension system at some point. I've done some research into it, and if i have anything to do with it: - it will not be perl. the language sux to maintain and it's heavy to add. - it will not be ruby, it is not mt (posix) or even capable of running multiple interpreters (unfortunately, i liked the look of it) - it wont be python. extensions are a lot of code, the language sux - it wont be ecma/javascript, or java - it might be mono's CIL, tho that depends on how heavy/useful it is/hard to integrate, and whether there's any real scripting language frontend for it (if we're gunna use c-hash we may as well stick to c) - it might be guile. it would be better if it was mt safe but its getting there & u can run multiple interpreters, and is in active devel. its easy to hook in & does gc in a compatible manner. - it cant be corba based as its too bulky to implement, and orbit is a big problem with mt code of course once the hooks for any language are in, adding more could be done via modules or something. in the end id like to have significant functionality moved into the script language too. which is why it needs to be something jeff and i in particular are comfortable with, and needs to interact well with existing c code from both above and below. ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
So you dont like TCL? Its small. Itz fast. Itz stable. And you get bonus points for making RS really angry;-) http://www.vanderburg.org/Tcl/war/ --JPK On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:30:52PM +0930, Not Zed wrote: > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 23:33, Andrew E. Page wrote: > > Has anyone added a perl interpreter into Evolution? I would like to use > > perls "Spam Assassin" module to filter spam. > > > > If no one is currently taking this on, I'd like to get a CVS snapshot of > > the code and see about embedding the perl interpreter myself. > > We plan to implement an extension system at some point. I've done some > research into it, and if i have anything to do with it: > - it will not be perl. the language sux to maintain and it's heavy to > add. > - it will not be ruby, it is not mt (posix) or even capable of running > multiple interpreters (unfortunately, i liked the look of it) > - it wont be python. extensions are a lot of code, the language sux > - it wont be ecma/javascript, or java > - it might be mono's CIL, tho that depends on how heavy/useful it > is/hard to integrate, and whether there's any real scripting language > frontend for it (if we're gunna use c-hash we may as well stick to c) > - it might be guile. it would be better if it was mt safe but its > getting there & u can run multiple interpreters, and is in active > devel. its easy to hook in & does gc in a compatible manner. > - it cant be corba based as its too bulky to implement, and orbit is a > big problem with mt code > > of course once the hooks for any language are in, adding more could be > done via modules or something. in the end id like to have significant > functionality moved into the script language too. which is why it needs > to be something jeff and i in particular are comfortable with, and needs > to interact well with existing c code from both above and below. > > > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers -- ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
No, don't like tcl either Jeff On Tue, 2002-09-03 at 12:00, PeterKorman wrote: > So you dont like TCL? Its small. Itz fast. Itz stable. > And you get bonus points for making RS really angry;-) > > http://www.vanderburg.org/Tcl/war/ > > --JPK > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:30:52PM +0930, Not Zed wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 23:33, Andrew E. Page wrote: > > > Has anyone added a perl interpreter into Evolution? I would like to use > > > perls "Spam Assassin" module to filter spam. > > > > > > If no one is currently taking this on, I'd like to get a CVS snapshot of > > > the code and see about embedding the perl interpreter myself. > > > > We plan to implement an extension system at some point. I've done some > > research into it, and if i have anything to do with it: > > - it will not be perl. the language sux to maintain and it's heavy to > > add. > > - it will not be ruby, it is not mt (posix) or even capable of running > > multiple interpreters (unfortunately, i liked the look of it) > > - it wont be python. extensions are a lot of code, the language sux > > - it wont be ecma/javascript, or java > > - it might be mono's CIL, tho that depends on how heavy/useful it > > is/hard to integrate, and whether there's any real scripting language > > frontend for it (if we're gunna use c-hash we may as well stick to c) > > - it might be guile. it would be better if it was mt safe but its > > getting there & u can run multiple interpreters, and is in active > > devel. its easy to hook in & does gc in a compatible manner. > > - it cant be corba based as its too bulky to implement, and orbit is a > > big problem with mt code > > > > of course once the hooks for any language are in, adding more could be > > done via modules or something. in the end id like to have significant > > functionality moved into the script language too. which is why it needs > > to be something jeff and i in particular are comfortable with, and needs > > to interact well with existing c code from both above and below. > > > > > > > > ___ > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > > -- > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
yeah, not very fond of tcl. it seems clunky. tcl also has a big problem with its version changing all the time and breaking scripts. (meaning if you use it in an app, you either leave the users with x copies of the libraries, or have to upgrade the scripts to suit). On Wed, 2002-09-04 at 01:30, PeterKorman wrote: > So you dont like TCL? Its small. Itz fast. Itz stable. > And you get bonus points for making RS really angry;-) > > http://www.vanderburg.org/Tcl/war/ > > --JPK > > On Fri, Aug 30, 2002 at 08:30:52PM +0930, Not Zed wrote: > > On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 23:33, Andrew E. Page wrote: > > > Has anyone added a perl interpreter into Evolution? I would like to use > > > perls "Spam Assassin" module to filter spam. > > > > > > If no one is currently taking this on, I'd like to get a CVS snapshot of > > > the code and see about embedding the perl interpreter myself. > > > > We plan to implement an extension system at some point. I've done some > > research into it, and if i have anything to do with it: > > - it will not be perl. the language sux to maintain and it's heavy to > > add. > > - it will not be ruby, it is not mt (posix) or even capable of running > > multiple interpreters (unfortunately, i liked the look of it) > > - it wont be python. extensions are a lot of code, the language sux > > - it wont be ecma/javascript, or java > > - it might be mono's CIL, tho that depends on how heavy/useful it > > is/hard to integrate, and whether there's any real scripting language > > frontend for it (if we're gunna use c-hash we may as well stick to c) > > - it might be guile. it would be better if it was mt safe but its > > getting there & u can run multiple interpreters, and is in active > > devel. its easy to hook in & does gc in a compatible manner. > > - it cant be corba based as its too bulky to implement, and orbit is a > > big problem with mt code > > > > of course once the hooks for any language are in, adding more could be > > done via modules or something. in the end id like to have significant > > functionality moved into the script language too. which is why it needs > > to be something jeff and i in particular are comfortable with, and needs > > to interact well with existing c code from both above and below. > > > > > > > > ___ > > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > > -- > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
PeterKorman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >So you dont like TCL? Its small. Itz fast. Itz stable. And you do not find syntax errors before actually (trying to) execute the line in the source. [ Fullquote deleted ] Bernd -- Bernd Petrovitsch Email : [EMAIL PROTECTED] g.a.m.s gmbh Fax : +43 1 205255-900 Prinz-Eugen-Straße 8A-1040 Vienna/Austria/Europe LUGA : http://www.luga.at ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Maybe "vote" was a wrong choosen word. "Poll" i wanted to say. I was not following the democatic consensus...just the basic idea what's going on in evolution users minds. What you say, might be true, but a software is build for consumers. Take MS Word..how many features has, and how many have you used? Want that Evolution to be in the same situation? What if we find out that less that 1% of evolution users really want that (scripting), and from that only a 10th will really use it?? While MS affords to pay programmers for that features, may i remind you that Evolution is not in the same position. Or i am wrong? I think that for that the posibility to pipe to/from an external program it solves the most of the problems proposed by users. Then everybody can use what ever he can use: Perl, Tcl, C#, etc. Cozy PeterKorman wrote: >Democratic consensus is not a source of software excellence. > >--JPK > >On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:58:21AM +0200, Costin Cozan wrote: > > >>that's exactly why we should vote. What is the most used ( or >>preferred) scripting language/system for evolution users? >>why could not be pluggable...? then you would have to maintain just the >>interface >> >>I am sure the moment it happens, next "day" we have a Evolution::[..] on >>CPAN..;) >> >>Aaah, good you reminded me of c# ; .NET is a platform where you can >>program or script in any language that supports. why not designing the >>same for Evolution?? Like making it the universal email tool? >> >> but, the dream finish suddenly...:) >> >>Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: >> >> >> >>>On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:04, Costin Cozan wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> You mean that Java like language from Microsoft? Maybe will be known as name, but on Unix/Linux platform hard to guess that is really used by somebodyand thus having experience >>>That will change. >>> >>> >>> >>i don't see that, sorry.Just tell me how i can program c# on my linux >>box... >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> And i believe that any incidental user on this platform has the minimum in Perl knowledge. >>>I don't, and I know quite a few other Unix hackers who don't know perl >>>either. So you'd be wrong with this guess. >>> >>> >>> >>then they are not Unix hackers. [To all] Am I right? >> >> >> >>>c# at least is OO and easy to learn. Not so with perl. >>> >>> >>> >>Just wondering, since when OO is simpler to understand and perl is >>hard? After 10 minutes reading a book of perl, you can already do major >>tasks. With OOP, you have to read a whole book ( ore more) just to get >>the idea. And yes, i am talking about normal persons using Evolution. >> >> >>However, i don't advocate Perl or any other preferred language. they all >>shoud have I am sure that there are other solutions that go better with >>other languages. >> >>And if in final C# will be the choice, then so be it. Hey, we could take >>the chance to learn it!! ;) >> >>Cozy >> >> >> >> >> >>___ >>evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers >> >> > > > ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Thu, 2002-09-05 at 10:59, Costin Cozan wrote: > Maybe "vote" was a wrong choosen word. "Poll" i wanted to say. I was not > following the democatic consensus...just the basic idea what's going on > in evolution users minds. > > What you say, might be true, but a software is build for consumers. Take > MS Word..how many features has, and how many have you used? Want that > Evolution to be in the same situation? What if we find out that less > that 1% of evolution users really want that (scripting), and from that > only a 10th will really use it?? The idea was that we (the developers) would also be using the scripting language to add features to Evolution, so that we didn't have to write all the features in c (which is a very time consuming process, especially since we don't have the luxury of a garbage collector), and so it's not necessarily important that a lot of users will use the scripting functionality. It's just an added bonus. This is why we are so against languages such as Perl. or at least this is my thought... and I think Michael Zucchi is thinking the same. Jeff -- Jeffrey Stedfast Evolution Hacker - Ximian, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] - www.ximian.com ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
On Fri, 2002-09-06 at 00:29, Costin Cozan wrote: > Maybe "vote" was a wrong choosen word. "Poll" i wanted to say. I was not > following the democatic consensus...just the basic idea what's going on > in evolution users minds. > > What you say, might be true, but a software is build for consumers. Take > MS Word..how many features has, and how many have you used? Want that > Evolution to be in the same situation? What if we find out that less > that 1% of evolution users really want that (scripting), and from that > only a 10th will really use it?? Well, how much of emacs does anyone (that uses emacs, no vi comments its just an example) use? Most people dont use most of it, but because its all done with scripts, most people dont care either. > While MS affords to pay programmers for that features, may i remind you > that Evolution is not in the same position. Or i am wrong? Well, Ximian has paid for evolution's development. Almost all code has been developed in house. Having a decent script environment would also allow external contribution to be made a lot easier and with less impact on the main codebase. It would lower our development costs and improve the feature set. > I think that for that the posibility to pipe to/from an external program > it solves the most of the problems proposed by users. Then everybody can > use what ever he can use: Perl, Tcl, C#, etc. I dont think you follow how 'scripting' is intended to work. I think scripting is a misnomer. I'd prefer to call it a customisation language/system. For example, why code the menu item which implements 'mark all as read', where it could simply be a 1-2 line script that auto-attaches itself to the menu when required. Or "reply to emails in this folder always go to this address, and use this from address". Customisation via scripting will allow us to implement all of those demanding users' demands without affecting the primary code base, and infact allow us to streamline the primary codebase at the same time. Just running an external program will only solve a subset of the problems that could be solved this way. And neither will it address the monolithic development model which hampers external contribution, etc. > Cozy > > PeterKorman wrote: > > >Democratic consensus is not a source of software excellence. > > > >--JPK > > > >On Sat, Aug 31, 2002 at 12:58:21AM +0200, Costin Cozan wrote: > > > > > >>that's exactly why we should vote. What is the most used ( or > >>preferred) scripting language/system for evolution users? > >>why could not be pluggable...? then you would have to maintain just the > >>interface > >> > >>I am sure the moment it happens, next "day" we have a Evolution::[..] on > >>CPAN..;) > >> > >>Aaah, good you reminded me of c# ; .NET is a platform where you can > >>program or script in any language that supports. why not designing the > >>same for Evolution?? Like making it the universal email tool? > >> > >> but, the dream finish suddenly...:) > >> > >>Jeffrey Stedfast wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>On Fri, 2002-08-30 at 14:04, Costin Cozan wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > You mean that Java like language from Microsoft? Maybe will be known as > name, but on Unix/Linux platform hard to guess that is really used by > somebodyand thus having experience > > > > > >>>That will change. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>i don't see that, sorry.Just tell me how i can program c# on my linux > >>box... > >> > >> > >> > >>> > >>> > >>> > And i believe that any > incidental user on this platform has the minimum in Perl knowledge. > > > > > >>>I don't, and I know quite a few other Unix hackers who don't know perl > >>>either. So you'd be wrong with this guess. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>then they are not Unix hackers. [To all] Am I right? > >> > >> > >> > >>>c# at least is OO and easy to learn. Not so with perl. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>Just wondering, since when OO is simpler to understand and perl is > >>hard? After 10 minutes reading a book of perl, you can already do major > >>tasks. With OOP, you have to read a whole book ( ore more) just to get > >>the idea. And yes, i am talking about normal persons using Evolution. > >> > >> > >>However, i don't advocate Perl or any other preferred language. they all > >>shoud have I am sure that there are other solutions that go better with > >>other languages. > >> > >>And if in final C# will be the choice, then so be it. Hey, we could take > >>the chance to learn it!! ;) > >> > >>Cozy > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >>___ > >>evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > ___ > evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] > http://lists.ximia
Re: [Evolution-hackers] Perl Interpreter in Evolution?
Ok, then if 'scripting' is intented to be implemented for such reasons, then it makes perfectly sense. Customization language for evolution will improve it for sure. Then anybody could write it's own extensions to it. Hey, that's great!:) You got me in for that! cozy PS. quite the same idea is in Lotus Notes/Domino...never used that, but if i remember good, there was a scripting languge for writing extensions. Maybe worths taking a look. > > >>I think that for that the posibility to pipe to/from an external program >>it solves the most of the problems proposed by users. Then everybody can >>use what ever he can use: Perl, Tcl, C#, etc. >> >> > >I dont think you follow how 'scripting' is intended to work. I think >scripting is a misnomer. I'd prefer to call it a customisation >language/system. For example, why code the menu item which implements >'mark all as read', where it could simply be a 1-2 line script that >auto-attaches itself to the menu when required. Or "reply to emails in >this folder always go to this address, and use this from address". > >Customisation via scripting will allow us to implement all of those >demanding users' demands without affecting the primary code base, and >infact allow us to streamline the primary codebase at the same time. > >Just running an external program will only solve a subset of the >problems that could be solved this way. And neither will it address the >monolithic development model which hampers external contribution, etc. > > > ___ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
