incubator-bloodhound-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ryan Ollos <ryan.ol...@wandisco.com>
Subject Re: AccountManagerPlugin
Date Wed, 16 Jan 2013 06:31:05 GMT
On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:52 AM, Peter Koželj <peter@digiverse.si> wrote:

> [...]
>
> I will look into both to get an idea what we want/need here. If it turns
> out that BH requires some BH multiproduct specific changes to be useful to
> us, do we have any idea how plugin author would see such a request?


We discussed this question directly, but I thought I should put a reply on
the list as well. I agree with what Olemis said, that in general I think
plugin authors won't be so open to directly supporting Bloodhound until it
gains some significant traction, but that is just a feeling. That is
probably how I'd feel if I wasn't involved with Bloodhound. AgiloTrac
provides a somewhat similar situation in that there are bug reports all
over trac-hacks that are specific to Agilo (a lot of jQuery / jQuery UI
conflicts, if I remember correctly). I've tried to help people with these
issues for plugins that I maintain, and I've noticed other developers with
the same attitude. However, I haven't used Agilo, haven't found the time to
get more familiar with it and setup a dev environment, and I'm generally
not willing to apply patches that I haven't tested myself, so the problems
seemed to fall by the wayside.

I've found the AccountManagerPlugin author very good to work with, and I
think he'd be supportive if we needed to additional API functionality
exposed for Bloodhound, but I can't imagine many plugin authors wanting to
include and support code that is Bloodhound-specific. So I'm taking the
approach to wait and see what we need, and then we can drill down to the
specifics of whether we will have to fork the plugin at some point, and how
all of that will play out.

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message