plugin api draft

Eric Stadtherr estadtherr at
Wed Feb 7 06:12:25 CET 2007

I had the same thought as your #1. This appears to be about a 75% 
re-architecture of the existing baseline (keeping only the IMAP 
interaction and the HTML layout). Is it worth that amount of volatility 
just to enable some plugins?


Sam Bailey wrote:
> Looks interesting so far.
> I have a few thoughts/issues about it:
> 1. this seems like a very large rewrite of the current code base - 
> maybe a little bit too big a change
> 2. the use of a js library has it's advantages, however since I've 
> been developing the RSS Reader I've found that the current js base is 
> good, and as in 1, this may be too big a change.
> 3. would it be easier to "hack" and cleanup the current code base too 
> add a plugin api?
>  eg. use php to add new js scripts at the start of a page & include 
> php files where needed etc.
> 4. on JSON however, I think it is a great idea to make the change to 
> this, but my knowledge is lacking in this area so I wouldn't know how 
> to do it.
> what do you think?
> By the way, if anyone wants to participate or watch the development of 
> the RSS Reader you can follow it at 
> or send me a 
> message at rssreader at <mailto:rssreader at>
> Sam
> (cyprix)
> till wrote:
>> Apologies - it's late here. Just resending with the correct subject.
>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>> Hi boys and girls,
>> the draft is here:
>> Happy to read all your feedback!
>> Cheers,
>> Brennan & Till

*Eric Stadtherr*
estadtherr at <mailto:estadtherr at>

More information about the Dev mailing list