On Fri, Jul 18, 2008 at 12:11 AM, C. Scott Ananian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 4:51 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> Yes, I agree that this is a goal that makes a lot of sense. >> Unfortunately, my experience says that the approach you are suggesting >> won't be less work than what we are doing right now, because the >> software components you mentioned aren't so easily malleable as you >> seem to think. > > Your argument might be correct for Abiword (I haven't look at the > code) but are completely off-base for Firefox, which is based on a > very sophisticated XUL/Javascript/XML based extensibility framework, > with far better developer support than we currently have for Python.
Well, with our current model, you can develop extensions in C++, JS and python in the same way you would do it for firefox or any other xulrunner-based app. And you can use those extensions as well in any of those apps if it makes any sense. So I think in this regard we are doing things as you are asking. About using XUL instead of the usual pygtk-based activity stuff, I really cannot see how it would help us. I don't see any advantage but see lots of code that would need to be rewritten. Can you enumerate the advantages you see by moving to use the XUL stuff? I guess you are suggesting to do something similar to Songbird. Thanks, Tomeu _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list Sugar@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar