On 02/27/2013 05:55 AM, pharmtech wrote:
It's hard to find a good balance between abstraction/flexibility and concreteness/simplicity. I like Mnemosyne's simplicity, but I'm not yet sold on how plugins (all the way down to the level of defining card types, multiple fields, etc.) will work. If I distribute a deck based upon complex fields, layout, etc., it seems like anyone who uses that deck will have a tedious learning curve identifying, downloading and installing all the plugins required by that deck.
As I told you a few times before in private conversation, please don't make any assumptions like that without knowing how libmnemosyne2 is designed. User-defined card types are stored in the database without the need for plugins, and interoperate well with the sync and export functionalities. Also, there is no issue whatsoever with the card browser.
If you want 'proof' of this, for cloned card types you also don't need to distribute any plugins. User-defined N-sided card types can make use of exactly the same machinery, it's just that the UI side of things has not been written yet...
Peter -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mnemosyne-proj-users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
