Fw: Re: New UI

[Allan Clark]

On 8/3/07, Josh Williams <yurimxpxman at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/3/07, Mark Doliner <mark at kingant.net> wrote:
> > I think Jeff probably meant to send this to everyone.
> >
> > ---------- Forwarded Message -----------
> > From: "Jeff Sadowski" <jeff.sadowski at gmail.com>
> > To: "Mark Doliner" <mark at kingant.net>
> > Sent: Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:25:49 -0600
> > Subject: Re: New UI
> >
> > Now that libpurple exists how hard is it to write a UI for it?
> > I might be able to wipp something up. :-)
> > I can't help thinking of a skin-able chat client.
> > Allowing you to have it look and act as a user desires. :-P
>
> That's what I've been thinking. I'm considering writing a QT UI. I'm
> not sure I like the idea of a skin-able client, though.. that seems
> like an awful lot of memory devoted to such a utilitarian application.
>
> Kopete already exists, but I'm not a big fan of it. Perhaps a QT
> implementation of Pidgin could replace it in future versions of KDE.

The problem with forking a UI or any separation is that newer changes
are slow to propagate (often) and (often) changes may result in
unforseen downsream issues.  This would mean that forked UI might
adopt changes more slowly, and it might be more difficult (ie Adium)
to implement various features (IRC) already supported by Pidgin.

Allowing these things to exist in a similar code trunk as Pidgin might
allow developers to see th impact of changing a specific API for
example.  It could also make it harder to maintain since every change
impact a number of random other things.  I wanted to throw this out
there:

It might be possible to fork the UI within the Pidgin tree to offer
support to both camps, who can then pursue the icons and fonts and
sizes and windows they prefer.

(and maybe one will offer IRC to Mac :) )

Allan
--
DIsclaimer: I'm too lazy to get a different IRC client.  Chatzilla
maybe.  Mostly an example, with a gentle jab at the Adium dudes, whose
native UI mostly-kicks-butt :)