On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:09 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM, Tomeu Vizoso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> I guess the alternative of refactoring the desired functionality out >> of Browse into a new module is seen as too cumbersome for our limited >> resources? > > Hmmm one option would be to keep hulahop generic (it's not fully > generic even right now, but we can keep it in mind as an ideal goal..) > and add higher level functionality to sugar-toolkit. (sugar.web?) > > What do you think? It doesn't sound bad to me. The fact that we are > getting xulrunner+hulahop in Fedora and other distributions might > attract users.
That sounds good to me. The only concern I have is that putting the web API in sugar-toolkit may give it more "officiality" than what we can really support? Perhaps that code will need to be updated quite often as we add features to Browse and thus be more unstable than the rest of the API? Regards, Tomeu _______________________________________________ Sugar mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
