Re: Update on automatic hierarchical bookmarks

[Peter Harvey <pah06 uow edu au>]

On Thu, 2004-05-20 at 11:24, Adam Hooper wrote:
> Why not make Epiphany do even less, and provide a set of 'Core extensions'?
> 
> For now, my idea would simply involve removing bookmarks/history code
> from Epiphany proper, then putting it into an extension. This would
> involve the 'Bookmarks' menu, parts of the 'Go' menu, the location bar
> and a few toolbar buttons[1]. If we just made an 'extensions'
> subdirectory inside Epiphany CVS, we could move over this code
> relatively painlessly.
> 
> The default Epiphany would be compiled along with this extension, and it
> would get loaded by default. However, the user could disable the
> extension if desired[2].
> 
> The advantage? Well, for one thing it'd be possible to build Peter's
> hierarchical bookmarks system as an extension. Right now it's a fairly
> small patch, but I imagine it'll get bigger and more featureful over
> time, and it might divert considerably code-wise. For another, a Galeon
> bookmarks system could be built and we might get more converts. We could
> also try a Storage-based bookmarks/history system.
> 
> A second candidate for a 'core extension' would be the popup-blocker
> one. At the very least, this concept would save us the trouble of
> merging it back into Epiphany proper (if we decide it should be a part
> of Epiphany proper).
> 
> To do this change we'd probably need to make the planned extensions
> manager GUI a part of Epiphany proper.
> 
> So, what do people think?

As an utter newbie, separating things out sounds good to me. :) As you
say, it would make it easier to offer different storage systems for
data. For example, bookmarks and history could be separated out.

But these are both data management tasks which should be shared with
other apps. Maybe a couple of CORBA servers might be a better setup? A
user would be able to pick between multiple CORBA servers which
implement the same interface.

Evolution seems to be doing something like this for it's next release
(the new evolution-data-server). Can someone with a better understanding
of the overall Gnome/CORBA architecture thing can say if having a CORBA
server for Bookmarks, and another for History is a good idea? Is this
making the situation more complicated for no gain? Would other
applications like to have a shared bookmarks system?

-- 
Peter Harvey <pah06 uow edu au>
SITACS, University of Wollongong