Philippe Bossut wrote: > Since I initially gave a "+1" to the proposal of yanking out the > plug-ins, I think I need to give my 2cts on the current proposal: > - I think I've been convinced by the thread that taking out the current > "Experimental" plug ins is not a good idea as it'll hinder potential > contributors to tinker with code, so I'm taking back my "+1" on that. I > was wrong.
I just keep on referring to Firefox, sorry :) FF does not ship with sample extensions, but has basically the same architecture Andi has proposed. Also, FF extensions are packed as jar archives (really a zip inside a zip). Yet developers find it easy to write extensions to Firefox. I still don't see why we would need to be any different. > - I don't think we have enough time to implement Andi's (most excellent) > proposal: it's great but too late and Preview's focus is on delivering a > great end user experience. I'd rather spend time on perf, fit and > finish, better interop to name a few. The plugin proposal will actually buy us a little performance, and it does not seem like that much of work. So it still has my +1 :) -- Heikki Toivonen
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Open Source Applications Foundation "chandler-dev" mailing list http://lists.osafoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/chandler-dev
