On Feb 23, 2007, at 3:25 PM, bulia byak wrote:

If there's no difference in performance AND in access to all the core

functions that a tool might need, then I would not object, of course.

But then, I would wonder why we are calling this a "plugin" :) Maybe

just "standardizing and simplifying the tools API" would be a better

description in that case.

Well... if things go according to the long-term plan, we'll have the core functions for sure. Performance might depend on a few factors, but should be close for most tools.

I think that we need to get existing tools cleaned up as far as their implementation goes so that they will come into line with the API we want to expose for plugins. Trying to plan that out will at least help us get some of the internal tools split out while at the same time giving plugins more core function access.