Boris Koenig wrote:
> Erik Hofman wrote:
> > I'm still not convinced that a plugin system would be such a great
> > idea for FlightGear.
> Well, I am just making suggestion  :-)

I think most of the criticism centers on the idea that, even if you
had a nice plugin system available, it really isn't going to help you
very much with doing extension development.  It doesn't change the
existing Nasal or FGCommand interfaces at all, and adds an extra layer
of complication.  Basically, you have to write a little extra code to
avoid typing "make" quite as often.  That's not a very good tradeoff.

The idea of a "plugin" comes from the commercial software world, where
distinct entities (Microsoft and aircraft vendors, for example) need
to ship software on different schedules.  It's a solution to a problem
that, honestly, we don't have yet.  We aren't that big.

I think as you get used to the existing architecture, you will find
that most of the "extensions" you are thinking of are best implemented
as augmentations (or even rewrites) of pre-existing code instead of
pluggable, not-quite-orthogonal extra features.


Flightgear-devel mailing list

Reply via email to