Re: Evolution Plugins (Was Re: Rise of the Plugins)

[Vincent Untz <vuntz gnome org>]

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 any of the core feature is implemented as a plugin, I accept that it
> should not be shown in the plugin-manager and will happily remove it
> from the plugin-manager list. (It should have been core-code than a
> plugin in the first place though) 
> 
> HTTP Calendars and IMAP Featuers are not core features since it may not
> be needed by everyone. Say a corporate Evolution-GroupWise user.

Heh. Bad examples :-)

I've opened the plugin list five minutes ago, to take a look. I wondered
why there were so many "core" plugins. So, looking at both examples
you're giving:

 + HTTP Calendars is described as "Provides core functionality for
   webcal and http calendars.". I'm a user who doesn't know anything
   about technical stuff: the plugin provides core functionality, so I
   enable it. I'm a user with a technical background: "oh, there are a
   lots of calendars on the web now, I want this to work, just in case"

 + IMAP Features is described as "A plugin for the features in the IMAP
   accounts.". Right. I have absolutely no clue what it's supposed to
   do. I guess evo still supports IMAP without this plugin, so why not
   support IMAP features anyway?

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.

This is not only true for evo, rhythmbox has the same issue (although
there are less plugins there)

(and of course, +1 for splitting evo)

Vincent

-- 
Les gens heureux ne sont pas pressés.