From: David J. K. <dke...@ko...> - 2002-07-23 18:08:20
|
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 10:27:01AM -0700, Matthew Bevan wrote: > Once you see the new design I'm implementing, you'll know why. The old > FAFileMover system was too, er, simple in my mind ;) Have a look at the > header file (and/or the iSilo/HTML manual, Plugin API section ;) and all > will become clear. My only concerns are that a) I have almost finished plug-ins that could have been easily ported if we maintained some backwords compatibility with the old architecture, and b) if plug-ins really start using an API this ambitious it could cause some significant performance problems. A bunch of analysis would be required to see if that's a valid concern or not. > Would be nice. That's what the survey would be for. "What format would > you like the manual to be distributed in?" I set that survey up. Try it out and you'll see why we need a better solution :) > There can only be one admin? No, but there "should" only be one admin. Too much chance of major catastrophies if there are multiple admins. As for the "call for developers" - for every developer we get there will probably be at least 100 curious users. That's why we need to keep FileCaddy in feature freeze for now and just work on bugs. Developers never want to fix bugs they want to add new features. Without a stable baseline to start with, that's a disaster waiting to happen. FYI - I posted to the MemPlug list today to let them know about FileCaddy (and take some of the wind out of PiTech's PiMoverII release) so be prepared for some bug reports :) |