Re: [Evolution-hackers] PIM application suite

[Jeffrey Stedfast <fejj ximian com>]

On Thu, 2004-04-15 at 15:41 -0700, Tristan O'Tierney wrote:
> is there any plan to split evolution up into separate
> entities that manage calendars, contacts, and email
> individually?  i use a mac every day, so the
> difference between the ical/mail/addressbook combo is
> quite apparent when compared to do-everything mail
> clients like evolution and outlook.  i think, in
> striving to do everything, they do everything poorly. 

so... how do you envision splitting evolution up into multiple components making it better? I don't see it...

will magic fairy dust come into play? :-)

> making one application have too much functionality
> also decreases it's usability (which thankfully gnome
> cherishes unlike KDE), however in this case even KDE
> got it right.  they too use separate applications.  so
> i suppose i'm asking for a petition of some sort to
> split the evolution application in to a suite of
> well-integrated programs that work together and do
> each individual task well

wait. you mean, you want it to do exactly what it already does? :-)

they basically *are* separate applications already, except they get embedded into a single window.

they are just applications that happen to be shared libraries that get dynamically loaded by the shell application rather than separate ELF executables.

>  rather than all tasks in a
> cluttered interface.  because quite frankely, i never
> go to my email program to add people to my address
> book, nor do i go to my calendar program to check my
> email.

evolution doesn't force you to do that, so I don't quite follow.

>   the benefit of having an official gnome
> addressbook app would be a great benefit anyways.  the
> way mac os x utilizes the addressbook for aim names in
> ichat is simply wonderful.

evolution 1.5 already does that

>   it makes managing
> names-->mediums 10 times simpler.  i hope some day
> gaim works with such a standarized addressbook.  i
> know evolution 2.0 is supposed to make a server for
> all these activities, but that isn't a replacement for
> what i suggest.

why not?

Jeff