On Fri, 2007-11-23 at 18:50 +, Calum Benson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 23:15 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Unfortunately, It is all in the mind of the hackers. I think it is our
job now to organize to a wiki or something.
What's wrong with putting in the user guide, where users
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 23:15 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Unfortunately, It is all in the mind of the hackers. I think it is our
job now to organize to a wiki or something.
What's wrong with putting in the user guide, where users might actually
find it...?
Cheeri,
Calum.
--
CALUM BENSON,
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 12:56 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 16:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Accepting appointments from mail-view, Mail-To-Task are all heavily used
in corporate setups.
... is really rather separate to great integration features. :-)
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 17:33 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 12:56 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 16:55 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Accepting appointments from mail-view, Mail-To-Task are all heavily
used
in corporate setups.
Unfortunately, It is all in the mind of the hackers. I think it is our
job now to organize to a wiki or something.
-Srini.
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 14:26 +0200, Enver ALTIN wrote:
On Mon, 2007-11-19 at 17:33 +0530, Srinivasa Ragavan wrote:
Tip: If you want to launch to open Addressbook in a new
Sorry to join late in the discussion, just back from my vacation.
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 11:38 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
On mer, 2007-11-14 at 23:56 -0700, Sankar P wrote:
2) Some plugins should not be shown
This may not be possible as people may not want a functionality
implemented by
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 10:56 +0530, Sankar P wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:20 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Alexander Larsson
This is kinda a backward question. The reason you want to split it out is
of course not because you want to use the mailer without the addressbook,
it
On mer, 2007-11-14 at 23:56 -0700, Sankar P wrote:
2) Some plugins should not be shown
This may not be possible as people may not want a functionality
implemented by a plugin. Disabling this plugin helps them to save
screen-real-estate (menu-items etc) and reduces memory foot-print.
If
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 11:38 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
snip
Maybe 95% of the plugins of evo should not be displayed as plugins. They
should either be preferences in the standard preferences dialog, or they
should be enabled anyway.
Totem and Rhythmbox have a number of hidden plugins that take
That is interesting to know a bit better how Evolution is organized. Thanks
Sankar.
Still, that makes it seem like a whole lot of unnecessary engineering. We
already *have* a shell: The GNOME desktop.
A bit off topic, but the miniature shell idea makes Evolution very confusing
to use. Program
(Sorry for messing up the thread...)
On 2007-11-16 at 11:38:45 +0100, Vincent Untz wrote:
(and of course, +1 for splitting evo)
Is there a bug open for this? I looked around and couldn't find any. I
also have some recollection of it being on the Evolution RoadMap but
it doesn't seem to be any
On Fri, 2007-11-16 at 08:57 +, Ross Burton wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 22:37 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
My poor knowledge of e-d-s' architecture is showing here; I believed it
stored everything, including e-mail, but apparently it only stores the
address book, calendar and tasks.
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 22:37 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
My poor knowledge of e-d-s' architecture is showing here; I believed it
stored everything, including e-mail, but apparently it only stores the
address book, calendar and tasks. However, my point still applies in
that e-d-s deals with
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 23:56 -0700, Sankar P wrote:
Hi All,
Some of the issues that were discussed (here and in #496839) and my
personal take on them will be:
1) Plugin list being un-manageable
I won't comment much on the details about this in evo, but I do think
that the plugins idea
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 07:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
We currently have the other extreme: several different applications
each
have their own take on the address book (and then each have their own
different ways of integrating/syncing it with e-d-s). Why not just
have
one desktop-wide
quote who=Alexander Larsson
This is kinda a backward question. The reason you want to split it out is
of course not because you want to use the mailer without the addressbook,
it is because you want to use the address book without the mailer.
... and you can provide a deliciously optimised
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 13:58 +0530, Sankar P wrote:
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 07:22 +, Philip Withnall wrote:
We currently have the other extreme: several different applications
each
have their own take on the address book (and then each have their own
different ways of
On Thu, 2007-11-15 at 21:20 +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
quote who=Alexander Larsson
This is kinda a backward question. The reason you want to split it out is
of course not because you want to use the mailer without the addressbook,
it is because you want to use the address book without the
I think bumping functionality to plugins is a pointless operation,
especially in a desktop environment that tries to follow the idea of having
a lot of small programs that each do simple tasks very well. Interfaces like
D-Bus let us create top-level applications (for lack of a better term in my
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 14:26 -0800, Dylan McCall wrote:
I think bumping functionality to plugins is a pointless operation,
especially in a desktop environment that tries to follow the idea of
having a lot of small programs that each do simple tasks very well.
Interfaces like D-Bus let us
Hi All,
Some of the issues that were discussed (here and in #496839) and my
personal take on them will be:
1) Plugin list being un-manageable
I am thinking of adding a smart-search-box which will query based on
plugin-names and pre-defined-tags associated with each plugin. This will
make it
Hi,
On Wed, 2007-11-14 at 23:56 -0700, Sankar P wrote:
Hi All,
Some of the issues that were discussed (here and in #496839) and my
personal take on them will be:
1) Plugin list being un-manageable
I am thinking of adding a smart-search-box which will query based on
plugin-names and
Vincent:
UI and code sharing
===
Every time a new module is getting the plugin love, I'm seeing this: I
stole the gedit/epiphany code and integrated it. Wow. Copy and paste?
Would it be possible to share all this code in a library? (maybe it's
not, I don't know: I didn't
On Fri, 2007-06-01 at 18:21 +0800, Brian Cameron wrote:
Many modules that have plugins use the same license for the plugins
as for the application. For example, rhythmbox and gedit plugins
are under the same GPL license as the application. I suspect not
a lot of thought went into deciding
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
...
Moving features to plugins/extensions
=
...
Some of the features implemented in plugins/extensions should just
always be there, and it's useless to disable the plugin/extension. The
handling of
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:28 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Martin Soto wrote:
An additional point that nobody has mentioned so far is security. Most
(if not all) plugin implementations already available for Gnome programs
seem to allow for installing plugins in some user-owned
Martin Soto wrote:
An additional point that nobody has mentioned so far is security. Most
(if not all) plugin implementations already available for Gnome programs
seem to allow for installing plugins in some user-owned directory. This
means that by gaining access to the user's home directory, an
Sex, 2007-05-18 às 12:54 +0200, Martin Soto escreveu:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:28 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Martin Soto wrote:
An additional point that nobody has mentioned so far is security. Most
(if not all) plugin implementations already available for Gnome programs
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 12:54 +0200, Martin Soto wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't security implications of plugins, but being
able to run code on login is much easier to do without bothering with them!
The fact that we already have some security holes to plug doesn't mean
we should open
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Sex, 2007-05-18 às 12:54 +0200, Martin Soto escreveu:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:28 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Martin Soto wrote:
An additional point that nobody has mentioned so far is security. Most
(if not all) plugin implementations already
Hi Ross:
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 12:00 +0100, Ross Burton wrote:
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 12:54 +0200, Martin Soto wrote:
I'm not saying there aren't security implications of plugins, but being
able to run code on login is much easier to do without bothering with
them!
The fact that
Sex, 2007-05-18 às 12:50 +0100, Andrew Sobala escreveu:
Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
Sex, 2007-05-18 às 12:54 +0200, Martin Soto escreveu:
Hi Andrew,
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:28 +0100, Andrew Sobala wrote:
Martin Soto wrote:
An additional point that nobody has mentioned so far is
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 11:57 +0100, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
However, while /home/ can be mounted without any execution
permissions, /usr not, and thus applications started by the session
manager are supposedly blessed by the admins (distro maintainers, and
what not) while those installed
Hey,
It's great to see more and more applications creating a plugin
architecture. However, I think it's worth discussing a bit some of the
issues we're facing wrt plugins. I'm just raising three points to start
the discussion, but there are probably other interesting items that are
worth
I think like you.
Gnome (and not gnome projects) needs uniform all the functionality of
all application making easy to use a common plugin GUI, uniform snippets
plugins (gedit plugin) and then I can use it in my editor or into
anjuta.
I think there are a lot of copy/paste instead of create a
Hey Vincent,
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
UI and code sharing
===
Every time a new module is getting the plugin love, I'm seeing this:
I
stole the gedit/epiphany code and integrated it. Wow. Copy and paste?
Would it be possible to share all this
On 5/17/07, Vincent Untz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
UI and code sharing
===
Every time a new module is getting the plugin love, I'm seeing this: I
stole the gedit/epiphany code and integrated it. Wow. Copy and paste?
Would it be possible to share all this code in a library?
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:55 +0200, chuchi wrote:
I think like you.
Gnome (and not gnome projects) needs uniform all the functionality of
all application making easy to use a common plugin GUI, uniform
snippets plugins (gedit plugin) and then I can use it in my editor or
into anjuta.
I
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 5/17/07, Claudio Saavedra [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The error message area widget used by EOG (trunk), gedit, epiphany,
and probably more applications, is other place where I'd like to see
more consistency. Maybe this is something worth to be
El dj 17 de 05 del 2007 a les 13:12 -0400, en/na Tristan Van Berkom va
escriure:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:55 +0200, chuchi wrote:
I think like you.
Gnome (and not gnome projects) needs uniform all the functionality of
all application making easy to use a common plugin GUI, uniform
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Plugin vs extension?
[...]
My €0.02: I think that people are getting used to the Extension term,
and it sounds less geeky.
Extension has the advantage that there's only one way to spell it (as
opposed to plugin vs plug-in).
A minor
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 19:41 +0200, Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Plugin vs extension?
[...]
My €0.02: I think that people are getting used to the Extension term,
and it sounds less geeky.
Extension has the advantage that there's only
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 12:46 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 19:41 +0200, Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Plugin vs extension?
[...]
My €0.02: I think that people are getting used to the Extension term,
and it sounds
Il giorno gio, 17/05/2007 alle 18.26 +0200, Vincent Untz ha scritto:
My €0.02: I think that people are getting used to the Extension term,
and it sounds less geeky.
I agree and Firefox is using extension too.
--
Marco Barisione
http://www.barisione.org/
Vincent Untz wrote:
Every time a new module is getting the plugin love, I'm seeing this: I
stole the gedit/epiphany code and integrated it. Wow. Copy and paste?
Would it be possible to share all this code in a library?
Well, I was thinking about stealing the eog code for gthumb, so +1 from
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 14:00 -0400, Behdad Esfahbod wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 12:46 -0500, Shaun McCance wrote:
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 19:41 +0200, Andy Wingo wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, 2007-05-17 at 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Plugin vs extension?
[...]
My €0.02: I think
Shaun McCance wrote:
It's not uncommon for software producers to have terminology
guidelines that don't quite follow dictionary definitions.
In the software world, we often use metaphors and re-use
words with a sufficiently similar real-world meaning.
For plug-in, the OED says:
*3.*
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Vincent Untz schrieb:
[...]
UI and code sharing
===
Every time a new module is getting the plugin love, I'm seeing this: I
stole the gedit/epiphany code and integrated it. Wow. Copy and paste?
Would it be possible to share all
В Чтв, 17/05/2007 в 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz пишет:
Hey,
It's great to see more and more applications creating a plugin
architecture. However, I think it's worth discussing a bit some of the
issues we're facing wrt plugins. I'm just raising three points to start
the discussion, but there
On Fri, 2007-05-18 at 00:50 +0400, Nickolay V. Shmyrev wrote:
В Чтв, 17/05/2007 в 18:26 +0200, Vincent Untz пишет:
Hey,
It's great to see more and more applications creating a plugin
architecture. However, I think it's worth discussing a bit some of the
issues we're facing wrt plugins.
1. They are badly tested. So called Evolution plugins distributed with
Evolution aren't translated properly even now. As with every GUI option
we create a lot of cases to test and make our system very complicated.
With current overcomplicated systems stability and safety became much
more
I'd like to add that imho an application having a plugin architecture
is a little less scary for the would-be contributor. At least I was
myself wrt rhythmbox.
The user may not care but eventually the more contributions the better
the application, so ...
cheers,
Christophe
On 5/17/07, Nickolay
52 matches
Mail list logo
