On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:34:18 +0200 Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> wrote:
> Am 09.05.2014 19:15, schrieb Dimitar Zhekov: > > On Fri, 09 May 2014 12:29:58 +0200 > > Thomas Martitz <ku...@rockbox.org> wrote: > > > > Unless we are trying to enable scripting in more than a few languages, > > I see no reason for all these complications. [...] > > I accept that the status-quo is fine for you, but not for me and others. > IRC discussions repeatedly indicated that proxy plugins are the way to > go (the alternative is automagic bindings through gobject introspection > which isn't feasible right now). I don't know the way to go, but there are two things we should not do: 1. Change the interface radically, gedit-style. 2. Introduce serious code changes that won't benefit the users. Proxy plugins may be beneficial at some future point, or we may end up with several poorly-supported languages, and later with unmaintained proxies we dare not remove because that'll kill their sub-plugins. > I suspect we would support 1 (or at most 2) proxy plugins ourself. I hope by "we" you mean the core plugins. Otherwise, that's no "support" at all. > Other > proxy plugins can be maintained by third parties out of tree or in > geany-plugins. I do not want to hard-limit the language choice to our > blessed one though. The other proxy plugins will be DOA, except for mini-plugins (macros, scripts) that suit single users. Why should one bother to write a serious, mass-distributable sub-plugin in a 3rd party language, when there are official ones? To risk the proxy plguin being unmaintained? -- E-gards: Jimmy _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.geany.org https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
