Re: [Evolution-hackers] camel->split in? eds or not


Yes, i think it would be more meaningful to split out camel from evolution [ since evo is more of a shell anyway ]. The points listed down below for having camel as a separate entity definately out-weigh the reasons for it to be part of e-d-s. Moreover, if e-d-s moves to the mode of having pluggable components [ loaded on demand ], camel could then easily provide that interface and e-d-s could still use it. Any third party utility [ nautilus, browser or even exchange in the current form ] could benefit from a separate camel library, since they would not have to link to e-d-s or evolution.

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 20:07 +0800, Not Zed wrote:

This is a mail i sent internally before, JP asked me to bounce it out, others might have contributions to make here.

There are some compelling reasons for putting camel in eds, but also several for not doing it.

I'm probably leaning toward the out mode.  Any extra community involvement would probably be worth the little extra one-time effort to split it out and the on-going release engineering effort.

Michael Zucchi <notzed ximian com>
"born to die, live to work, it's all downhill from here"
Novell's Evolution and Free Software Developer
                                        -- Sarfraaz Ahmed <asarfraaz novell com>

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]