[Chandler-dev] Yet another proposal for Chandler plugins
Phillip J. Eby
pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Feb 14 09:03:23 PST 2007
At 05:15 PM 2/13/2007 -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
>On Feb 13, 2007, at 4:57 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>>At 04:33 PM 2/13/2007 -0800, Ted Leung wrote:
>>>So while README's are good,
>>>they aren't nearly enough.
>>Yes, I'm just saying that this doesn't seem to me to interfere or
>>compete with Andi's proposal. Andi has uses for the functionality
>>and the willingness+ability to develop it -- which is not really
>>the case for what you're proposing, IIUC.
>>At least having README's and buildable plugins goes a good way
>>towards having examples that others can tinker with. Improved
>>ability to tinker (e.g. the menu proposal) is also helpful.
>>Arguably, good tinkering support is at least as important as
>>reference documentation and tutorials, which we already have
>>Obviously, all documentation can always be improved, but in terms
>>of rounding out what we have, Andi's proposal does help to fill out
>>one of the weaker spots.
>Andi solicited feedback on his proposal and I gave it. If you guys
>want to ignore it, that's your perogative.
Ted, in this thread:
you +1'd a proposal that differs very little from Andi's as far as I can
tell in practical terms. It would be helpful if you would clarify why your
opinion appears to be so different now. Note that both proposals call for
plugins to be initially inactive, and to have a UI facility for accessing
them. Andi's proposal allows us to offer more features in the plugin
selection UI (i.e., the Cheeseshop one) at comparable cost.
I'm confused by your remarks at this point because I don't understand what
developer documentation has to do with the subject at hand (i.e., what to
do about plugins in the Preview release).
More information about the chandler-dev