Talk:Plug-in (computing)

message: I've removed a statement to the effect that plugins usually run in a sandbox, because I'm pretty sure it isn't true.  If anyone wants to add it back in, I think we should include a source for it.  I note that most of the information here is unsourced, which is possibly something that needs attention. JulesH 10:20, 9 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandboxes? 

message: Where does this architecture come from? Are there papers or books that talk about it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.124.81.121 (talk) 22:22, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Origins?

message: User Interface to operate OVO functionality.
 
 Independent of Operators Workstation.
 
 It is alternate way to Motif-GUI or platform specific 
  commands to operate OVO.
Requirements : 
	Java runtime engine should be available on 
	operators workstation.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.219.201.75 (talk) 03:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Java Based GUI for OV-operations 

message: There is a section in the plug-in article that lists the difference between plug-ins and extensions. What else do you want? For example, firefox supports both plug-ins and extensions. They are different. Plug-ins are very limited in scope, extensions aren't. jprikkel
The differences between plug-in and software extension are not sufficiently clear in my opinion. As it is written, it seems to me that they are synonyms. Therefore, I propose a merge. (A satisfactory alternative would be to clearly show the difference between both concepts, but AFAIK there is no such difference). --Antonielly (talk) 14:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Hymek (talk) 12:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plug-in X Software extension 

message: Shouldn't it be "Plug-in"? The arcticle says the term was coined as "plug-in". Also, webster and other sources list "plug-in" as a word, but not "plugin". jprikkel
I found no entry for "plug-in" in Webster's New World College Dictionary. Interestingly, Google and Wikipedia both direct users to "plugin". I am writing a style guide for my company and am trying to discover an industry standard. The old Microsoft Manual of Style (1998) says that (in Internet usage) "plug-in" should be used only to refer to Netscape-specific components.
picaraza 18:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Interestingly, Google and Wikipedia both direct users to 'plugin'"?  Wrongggg. Google does not, at least not today.  As for Wikipee, that's mere circular reasoning.  If the title of this article were changed to "Plug-in", then with one more keystroke, WP would be made to redirect "plugin" seekers to "plug-in". Kkken (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

text: The conversation seems to have died out some time ago, but the title hasn't been changed to "Plug-in" yet.  How come? Kkken (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plugins or Plug-ins? 

message: I set off the examples in the first paragraph in a bulleted list, to make it a little easier to read for the less technically inclined. I need a definition to refer to when I'm writing for a novice audience, and this one is perfect. (Also corrected a few typos/misspellings here and there.) threecoyote
I added some clarification between main program and application. I also listed the independant nature of the main application on its plugins. jprikkel
"Pluginbrery" is a concept that is found only on this page and wikipedia-derived websites. Added here by an anon user. Can anyone provide any other links to the term. Jay 07:18, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misc talk 

message: A I recall, Desk Acessories (DAs) for the early Macintoshes were not just small simple user programs, they were actually plug-ins for the Finder.  As plug-ins for Hypercard are mentioned and this was an earler instance on the same platform it might make sense to mention this first.  Also, it strikes me as an interesting way of applying the technology as Classic Mac DAs were quite varied in terms of pupose and complexity.  Some were comparable to application software.
68.38.196.235 (talk) 20:27, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  classic mac os desk acessories 

message: Do EMACS modes and macros merit some mention in this article?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.196.235 (talk) 20:28, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I would not think so. There is no corresponding page on Wikipedia, AFAICT. Additionally, a DeeperWeb search returns pages that are mostly from the EMACS knowledge space. I believe that if you are using EMACS, you don't need a general encyclopedic section entry on plug-ins and EMACS. Former Big Iron Guy (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  EMACS Macros?