Re: [Filecaddy-developers] Survey and SF Permissions

[David J. K. <dke...@ko...>]

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 :)