On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 18:55 +0530, Sarfraaz Ahmed wrote: > Hi, > > Yes, i think it would be more meaningful to split out camel from > evolution [ since evo is more of a shell anyway ]. The points listed > down below for having camel as a separate entity definately out-weigh > the reasons for it to be part of e-d-s. Moreover, if e-d-s moves to > the mode of having pluggable components [ loaded on demand ], camel > could then easily provide that interface and e-d-s could still use it. > Any third party utility [ nautilus, browser or even exchange in the > current form ] could benefit from a separate camel library, since they > would not have to link to e-d-s or evolution. > they would not have to link to e-d-s or evo if camel is part of e-d-s. libcamel would still be a separated library, so apps will just link to it, not to libecal/libebook, if it doesn't need to.
-- Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ evolution-hackers maillist - [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/evolution-hackers
