Totally agree with this. All we need to do is imagine where we want Koha to be pluggable! So far we have the ability create Report/Tool plugins, arbitrary file to MARC conversion plugins, and I also have submitted a patch to make EDIFACT pluggable ( once it gets it ). The first step is to know what behavior needs to be modified, then make that behavior pluggable. It's almost a chicken or the egg issue. I suppose what we need to do is watch for new patches for very region specific features ( such as Norwegian patron DB ) and suggest a path to plug-ability rather pushing the code itself into Koha.

Kyle

http://www.kylehall.info
ByWater Solutions ( http://bywatersolutions.com )
Meadville Public Library ( http://www.meadvillelibrary.org )
Crawford County Federated Library System ( http://www.ccfls.org )
Mill Run Technology Solutions ( http://millruntech.com )

On Thu, Feb 11, 2016 at 5:24 AM, Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com> wrote:
+1 to "one Koha to rule them all"
+1000 to a more powerful plugin system!
Having a plugin system to build custom tools and reports is great, but I
think we could (and should) go further.

Le 11/02/2016 10:38, Magnus Enger a écrit :
> Dear Community!
>
> A quote from another thread on koha-devel:
>
> "I look at the code, and beside wondering why that custom feature
> [Norwegian patron DB] is so profoundly imbricated into master Koha, I
> was wondering what is not working."
>
> I think this raises an interesting question. Should we let features
> into Koha that are only of interest to libraries in one or a small
> number of countries? Or should we confine those features to
> country-specific forks?
>
> The quote above implies (I think) that support for the Norwegian
> patron DB should be in a country-specific fork.
>
> On the other hand, the project implementing Koha for public libraries
> in Turkey has been criticized for not integrating their customizations
> into Koha. To which someone replied that the customizations were not
> of much interest to libraries outside Turkey.
>
> So do we want one Koha to rule them all, including country-specific
> features, or do we want one fork per country?
>
> Personally, I prefer the former. In the case of the Norwegian patron
> DB, that is one of the 2-3 "must have" features that all Norwegian
> public libraries will be looking for when they are choosing between
> Koha or some proprietary system. Should we be telling them "Nope, you
> can't use the real Koha, but you can use this fork over here"? That
> will not increase their confidence in choosing Koha, I suspect.
>
> That said, I do think some principles should be applied:
>
> - Strive to make even the country specific features as general as
> possible, so that others can use them as starting points for similar
> features.
>
> - Strive to make the features as unobtrusive as possible.
>
> And maybe, in time, the plugin system can be made powerful enough that
> it can handle some or all of the country-specific features?
>
> Thoughts?
>
> Best regards,
> Magnus Enger
> Libriotech
> _______________________________________________
> Koha-devel mailing list
> Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
> http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
> website : http://www.koha-community.org/
> git : http://git.koha-community.org/
> bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/
>


--
Julian Maurice <julian.maurice@biblibre.com>
BibLibre
_______________________________________________
Koha-devel mailing list
Koha-devel@lists.koha-community.org
http://lists.koha-community.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/koha-devel
website : http://www.koha-community.org/
git : http://git.koha-community.org/
bugs : http://bugs.koha-community.org/