Re: [Evolution-hackers] camel->split in? eds or not

[Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo novell com>]

On Tue, 2004-08-24 at 18:55 +0530, Sarfraaz Ahmed wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> Yes, i think it would be more meaningful to split out camel from
> evolution [ since evo is more of a shell anyway ]. The points listed
> down below for having camel as a separate entity definately out-weigh
> the reasons for it to be part of e-d-s. Moreover, if e-d-s moves to
> the mode of having pluggable components [ loaded on demand ], camel
> could then easily provide that interface and e-d-s could still use it.
> Any third party utility [ nautilus, browser or even exchange in the
> current form ] could benefit from a separate camel library, since they
> would not have to link to e-d-s or evolution.
> 
they would not have to link to e-d-s or evo if camel is part of e-d-s.
libcamel would still be a separated library, so apps will just link to
it, not to libecal/libebook, if it doesn't need to.

-- 
Rodrigo Moya <rodrigo novell com>