On Sunday 22 November 2009 14:46:45 Andrea Diamantini wrote: > On Sunday 22 November 2009 16:07:41 nehlsen wrote: > [...] > > blocks which i think should be plugins: > > - adblock > > - web shortcuts > > - click to flash > > What let you think this? > > [...] > > I have three big problems with plugins: > 1. don't think they are essential > 2. don't fit well with my main "lightweight browser" idea > > and most important.. > > 3. let application crash when they crash > > So, I think that before starting working on, you have to demonstrate me I'm > wrong.
top and (2.) i think, if the mentioned features were plugins the browser would be even more lightweight and easier to extend. e.g. another or an additional adblocker or another engine for web shortcuts. this way the user would by default get a very minimalistic/leightweight browser but could extend it as needed with e.g. adblock and webshortcuts capabilities. (1.) essential or not, could be argued about a lot of functionalities, thats why i think a plugin system would be appropriate. (i mean, who needs a bouncing ball on their desktop?) furthermore a flourishing plugin ecosystem would lead to a bigger user base because with the ability to support more features and more individuality more users were drawn to use rekonq. (3.) if the functionality is implemented in a plugin or in the browser itself does not make a difference when its code causes a crash i did not start working on that, just gave it some thought, because is think that rekonq is "young enough" that such a feature could still be implmented and i would like it a lot ;) regards _______________________________________________ rekonq mailing list [email protected] https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/rekonq
