Discussion about Web App Thunderbird

Eyal Rozenberg eyalroz at technion.ac.il
Wed Apr 10 12:54:24 UTC 2019


On 10/04/2019 9:38, Magnus Melin wrote:
> it's not written in stone that a mobile version could never be
> created.

But it is written in stone that we (or rather, you guys) are not working
towards that end. That is, to my knowledge, the Thunderbird council has
not authorized orienting the development of Thunderbird towards a mobile
version (or a web application etc.)


> I think that depends a lot on which things you intend to do, and how you
> do it. What we can say is that we need to take care so that we identify
> the bottlenecks and optimize them appropriately. I'll point out in this
> discussion that the pure JavaScript model is also faster since crossing
> the XPCOM boundaries is comparatively very, very slow.

1. Citation needed to back this sweeping claim...
2. That sounds like a reason to consider how to allow for faster
crossing of the boundary between JS to compiled code (with XPCOM or
otherwise).

On 10/04/2019 9:52, Magnus Melin wrote:> On 08-04-2019 15:55, Tanstaafl
wrote:
> When I'm talking about the target of a super fat, privileged web
> application I'm talking about the technology in the back.

Yes, so are we (at least, I am and I think I speak for Tanstaafl and
some otherws as well). Thunderbird should not have this technology in
the back.

(Personally, I think the technology in the back should go even further
and even more "server"-y than "desktop"-y. I think I mentioned this in
the "Vision for Thunderbird" discussion last year, but I'm hoping for
something closer to a proper database engine for MIME trees and other
structured data types for messages, with a rich set of operations,
multiple format backends, compression etc. But I digress.)

> Thunderbird would still be a desktop application just like to today.

A web app hiding behind a desktopy facade is still essentially a web app.

> That the
> technology behind would open up other possibilities in the future is a
> bonus, but not the primary target at the moment since that could
> easily side track the main developments.

You're suggesting this _is_ a target, albeit a secondary one. I again
like to clear this up. Has the council decided that a mobile client, or
TB-as-a-web-app, is a target of any kind for development work? If so,
please post a link. If not, please don't let it sneak in by the back door.

Eyal



More information about the tb-planning mailing list