[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Mitch \(WebCob\)" <mitch at webcob dot com>
 To:  "Brett Maxfield" <maxfieb at spacenow dot net>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] Announcement: Package functionality under serious consideration!
 Date:  Sat, 20 Mar 2004 13:39:02 -0800
Hey Brett.

I'd consider that pushing my luck ;-)

That would require extensions and standard library functions within the mono
gui to make it a documented API for connecting to... sounds like a lot more
effort for Manuel - and I don't think that will fly.

Anyone capable of writing a module can easily maintain their own config
file - steal the code that is in the base mono gui, but putting it in the
same file could introduce complexity and confusions and problems and bring
more support issues to the list - don't think that's good.

If they stand alone, they maintain their own config and independance from
changes to the mono gui and config files - and they don't make life
difficult for anyone using the existing base.

I appreciate the idea and considered it before I formed my initial
suggestion, but when thinking of the amount of added effort and resulting
potential for conflicts and problems I discarded it.

My 2 humble cents...


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brett Maxfield [mailto:maxfieb at spacenow dot net]
> Sent: Friday, March 19, 2004 5:19 PM
> To: Mitch (WebCob)
> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch; Dinesh Nair
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Announcement: Package functionality under
> serious consideration!
> Outstanding idea, by the way :P
> What about config.xml, maybe there should be a niche carved ?
> <config>
>    ..existing
>    <plugins>
>        <plugin name="myplugin">
>            ..whatever
>        </plugin>
>    <plugins>
> </config>
> I'd suggest the whole <plugins> element be optional..
> Cheers
> Brett