On Thu, 2010-08-26 at 21:47 +0200, Nicolas Chachereau wrote: > Thank you Alex for your thoughtful answers. I have one follow-up > question. You wrote: > > > We want Do to become a first class part of your desktop. To implicitly > > integrate with your system. We want the applications themselves to have more > > control over what Do does. This should increase the coherence between Do > > and your desktop. > > This sounds great, but it is pretty abstract. Can you give me an > example of this tight integration? What application could benefit from > having more control over Do?
Firstly, there's an overall goal here in reducing the current plugin bottleneck. We've got *lots* of plugins, but in order for your swanky new application to get supported in Do you additionally need to write a Do plugin, get that merged into do-plugins, etc. The new architecture allows the application itself to provide the functionality a Do plugin would provide. Since the requirements for Do are quite close to the requirements for a GUI automation/scripting tool, I think this will create exciting opportunities. We're also looking at having a live-search mechanism, where rather than the plugin/application providing all the items up front it can provide them on-demand. Think google's search suggestions, or a full filesystem search, or a dynamic search of Banshee's database. > > > Another great engineering point is that it lets us also move the plugins > > into their own processes. Plugins will never again be able to crash Do. If a > > plugin crashes you won't get its items- but everything else will still work, > > as if nothing happened. [...] > > Sounds good, even though Do never crashes on my computer. > > Thank you for taking a look at my "wishlist". Being able to write > plugins in any language is very nice! I won't comment a lot more, but > if I understand correctly, you will look into some of these issues, > which is great :) > > > Happy to answer all of your questions, I hope I did a sufficient job. If you > > have any questions about blueprints, or if you can identify parts that are > > unclear to you I'd like to know so I can clear the up. > > I'll look more into them, and see if I can give you a better feedback. >
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
