On 2016-08-29 03:17 PM, Thomas Martitz wrote:
Am 29.08.2016 um 17:05 schrieb Jiří Techet:
[...]
There is also another aspect about the proposal that worries me: a
plugin shall provide N features for M languages. And X plugins might be
compete (not even considering the desire that plugins can build upon
each other). This means (slightly exaggerated) that N*M*X possibilities
have to be managed by Geany's conflict resolution. I don't want to
implement that. It seems much simpler to me to collect tags from
plugins, merge them (maybe throw out duplicates) and pass them to the
actual feature code all within Geany.
In principle it's not that hard to manage, as mentioned in my "Proposed
Design" message, Geany just needs to keep the providers in a list and
the callbacks work like GTK/GDK callbacks (and some in Geany) where the
callback's return value determines whether the next provider is called
or not. In that message I attached a mockup of a kind of UI that could
be used to allow users absolute control, and for Geany it's just a (set
of) ordered lists.
What worries me is that we jumped from mere brainstorming to a
relatively concrete proposal, without evaluating requirements or any
other research. Or was this evaluation just invisible to me?
I evaluated and experimented with several different approaches and
discussed various details with some of the main developers (including
you) on IRC. Based on the way that in my opinion, as someone who has
tried and failed to implement the needed features in the past, and as a
Geany developer, I recommended a proposed design for further input. And
here we are :)
As I asked in an earlier message, I'd be interested if you could provide
some more concrete examples of what you were thinking with using TM,
which would accomplish the goals mentioned in the Github Issue and
fleshed-out more in the top of this thread.
Cheers,
Matthew Brush
_______________________________________________
Devel mailing list
Devel@lists.geany.org
https://lists.geany.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devel
