-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Rémi,
On 12 December 2001 at 16:49:09 [GMT+0200] (which was 14:49 where I live) Rémi Pach wrote to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and made these points: RP> Let me quote: If you really want to, you're welcome, but the truth is, time has passed and the "best laid plans of mice and men...". Reality caught up and the goalposts have moved in the time that has gone between the interview and the development schedule. I can easily understand and accept that. What's more, not *all* of the intended facilities will be in V2.0. Many will not appear until V2.1. That's not unacceptable nor even anything other than a computer industry norm. RP> "Version 2 will have an alternative editor which will be fully RP> compatible with Windows editors, but it will have extra features RP> like optional virtual space. It might even just be a plugin." This goal has been replaced by the need to support HTML authoring. The new editor will have to support that first and foremost. I don't know if the plan is to support additional options to pander to those with a "virtual space phobia". It may. I doubt that it will be a plug in. RP> "We are planning to make the Linux version when Delphi for Linux RP> will be available (this year, as promised by Inprise, Inc)." Done. RP> Plugins: "Yes, that is true. It will be possible to extend The RP> Bat! using DLLs AND scripts." Not yet done, but part of the V2 development curve. RP> "Almost everything will be plug-in/script driven (menu items, RP> toolbar buttons, macros, filter actions etc. included)." Not the way it worked out (shrug). RP> Non-fixed-width font: "Yes". Done. RP> Redefinable shortcuts: "Yes". To be done. RP> PGP: "PGP messages will be handled in a completely different way RP> :-)" (whatever that was supposed to mean). Done. RP> Encryption of attachments to encypted e-mails: "Yes". S/MIME covers that for now. Because of the uncertain future of PGP, the lack of a PGP v7 SDK, the poor cooperation available from the Gnu clique and GPG, PGP/MIME support is still on the wish list. RP> Newsreader: "We still have not decided on what it will look like - RP> as a plug-in or as a built-in function..." I have no idea what is happening with that. RP> Scripting: "I guess, we will end up making it possible to add a RP> script language plug-in so users can choose what scripting RP> language they'd like to use :-)" Instead, the Macro language has been beefed up and the filter system is turning into something that looks like a scripting engine. RP> Hooks for virus scanning: "Yes". This is done. RP> Improvement of IMAP 4 support: "Yes". :-) This one's a bit of a problem child. There's a bit of a mismatch between the goals of an extreme off-line client like TB and the on-line folder management requirements of pure IMAP4. I really don't know what I'd do as a software engineer given the choice of keeping the integrity of the local mail management facilities and having to support remote mail management for IMAP. It's a "rock and a hard place" issue. RP> Words, of course, are cheap. If version 2 can be defined from the RP> above, we are still very far from v2!... I couldn't disagree more. You are completely wrong. More than 50% of the goals you have listed above have been met. That doesn't constitute "far off". You have also edited out the list of features you know have already been met - that puts it closer still. Of the others some features have been either written off or postponed but remain part of the V2 development curve. RP> I am not running the current beta, so I may be missing a few RP> things, More than a few. Before writing at such length, perhaps you should have looked? RP> but all in all it looks like TB's development is not following any RP> well-defined path and the "revolutionary" V2 will be a mere RP> offspring of v1.53 with a few gimmicks, including (lo and behold) RP> a calculator and a scratchpad! Your cynicism is noted but not warranted. >> The truth is that 1.54 is almost certain to be released as the >> first V2 early next year. RP> Strange. V2 had been announced as being built from the group up: > Q: v2.0 is rumored to have been built from the ground up (not from > version 1.x), is this true? > R: Well, almost. There are only a few things that will not change too > much. "Well almost". You call that "announced", do you? I think not. Besides, much has actually /been/ re-written from the ground up. The message base handling (1.42), the sorting office (1.54), the message viewer (1.54), the HTML rendering engine (1.54), an editor (1.54). The truth remains that 1.53 contained many V2 features already. Many more have been added to make a preliminary v2 release set. > That was nearly two years ago... I rest my case. You do. Not very strong, is it? <g> - -- Cheers -- .\\arck D. Pearlstone -- List moderator ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \ BrainStorm - free thinking - www: http://www.brainstormsw.com / \ PGP Key ID: 0x929DCDA0 | www: http://www.silverstones.com / ' TB! v1.54 Beta/15-14F4B4B2 on Windows NT 5.0.2195 ' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (MingW32) Comment: GPG Sealed for freshness iD8DBQE8F3XAOeQkq5KdzaARAsULAJ0Z7KDAViq3gm8HkfPC4NCAAPGlKQCgwcqR +wBsa2/+ldOou6i4EXhVHew= =H6p7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- ________________________________________________________ Archives : http://tbudl.thebat.dutaint.com Moderators : mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] TBTech List: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Latest Vers: 1.53d FAQ : http://faq.thebat.dutaint.com
