I agree, +1 especially with having the schema on the wiki for us all to review.
On Jun 2, 2009, at 8:00 AM, rick c wrote: > > > > On Jun 2, 8:15 am, Owen Winkler <[email protected]> wrote: >> Ali B. wrote: >>> I think we'd need to hold on to Plugin for a little Longer. We may >>> get >>> to a point were we need something implemented in plugins only. If we >>> switch now and need that in the future, we'd need to break plugins >>> again. This sure is a possibility. >> >>> On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM, rick c <[email protected] >>> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> Since info() is the only thing left in Plugin at the moment, >>> am I >>> correct in concluding this means that Plugin can go away >>> completely? >>> Which would also mean that all plugins should derive from >>> Pluggable, >>> and also need rewritten? >> >> The Plugin class is used for more than just a container for its >> methods. >> Being derived from the Plugin class denotes a certain status that >> is >> used by the rest of the code. >> >> Owen > > Ok. I look forward to the schema. It's a change that's been needed for > a while. > > Rick > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/habari-dev -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
