<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 4/5/17 6:17 PM, Ben Bucksch wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:b83c4024-c715-04b6-4257-466f5f737fcd@beonex.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Magnus Melin wrote on 4/5/17 9:14 AM:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:165b88e4-31dc-e8d9-6752-77bcd4f2a05a@iki.fi">On
5.4.2017 03:09, Ben Bucksch wrote: <br>
<blockquote type="cite">How did you develop JSMime? You first
developed it as a standalone component, then integrated it in
Thunderbird, didn't you? What I propose here would be doing
the same thing. How is that a multiplier? <br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Implementing different features as components with modern design
is all good. What's not so good is that you seem to say actually
integrating those components into Thunderbird for real usage is
a secondary priority. It needs to be *the* priority, because
that's the only way you could get enough real world feedback.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I want to build a new desktop email client, based on web tech with
a modern code design, which imitates Thunderbird and eventually
has feature parity.<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
We have a mature product and a lot of mature users. You do not
seriously believe that launching a "new" product that is not at
feature parity will fly with the users do you?. You will probably
satisfy some users, but a significant number of them would be happy
if you just updated outlook express to run properly on Windows 10.
They are very unlikely to be those putting their money or time where
their mouth is. They like free as in beer and will just move on to
the next free as in beer product with more features.<br>
<br>
I would suggest anyone on this list thinking a modular approach is a
good idea should try using the Lithium version of SUMO. That is a
perfect example of a modular building process that simply does not
work well. Lithium is well funded and has lots of staff, Mozilla
have been throwing people at it and it simply is not flying. I see
it, and read this thread and can not help drawing comparisons. New,
shiny, JavaScript and not at feature parity.<br>
<br>
Matt<br>
</body>
</html>