Ferdinand Soethe wrote:
Ross Gardler wrote:
Just to be clear. The reason we decided (in the past) not to allow
plugins to have dependencies in this way is because it requires the user
to have a deep understanding of what plugins work with what other
plugins. Even worse, they need to know which versions of plugins will
play happily.
By requiring the user to know this we will end up with user support
questions, which in turn will result in us having to maintain
documentation, which in turn will get out of synch with the reality of
development, which will result in more user confusion.
So, my proposal is to document what plays with what in a feature
definition file as described in the previous email. We can generate
documentation from this file and it removes the need for the user to
worry about version numbers of plugins.
This was really helpful because if made me go back and re-read you
previous posting and really understand features.
+1 for the concept
How about naming them in a way that explains better what they are.
Something like compound-plugin for example?
I really have no problem with any name. Features can be a little
misleading and did confuse me for a while in the Eclipse environment.
Ross
