[Chandler-dev] Yet another proposal for Chandler plugins
twl at osafoundation.org
Wed Feb 14 11:44:09 PST 2007
On Feb 14, 2007, at 9:03 AM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
> 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
>>> several of.
>>> 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.
The proposal I thought I was +1 ing involved a single menu item (a
binary toggle) to enable or disable all the demo plugins at once.
There is no plugin activation UI, no browser for discovering new
plugins, etc, which is what would be needed for the plugin selection UI.
> 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).
The subject at hand (in my mind) is do we include the demo plugins.
The reason why is to encourage developers to try writing their own
plugins. Given that as the ultimate goal, if we are going to spend
time doing more UI than the binary toggle, then I would rather see us
spend the time on more docs. But I would be plenty happy with just
a binary toggle for Preview, and I've given up hope that we will get
any more dev docs by Preview. We just have too many other things
(like performance) to work on.
Does that help?
More information about the chandler-dev