I tried to use the Perl-Fu scripts in 1.1.21 and I saw that all of
them abort with the following error displayed on the console:
** ERROR (recursed) **: could not find handler for message: 65536
And this message is displayed in a pop-up box:
[/path/to/script]: the gimp is using a newer version of the plug-in
protocol than this plug-in.
Marc, I suppose that you are aware of this and that you can fix it?
I suppose that this was a consequence of the recent changes in the
wire protocol. Hi Mitch! ;-)
But I also noticed that something else has changed in the Perl-Fu
scripts: in the previous versions that I tried (under Solaris), these
scripts were always registered at the bottom of the menus, instead of
being mixed with the C plug-ins. Now it seems to be the contrary: the
Perl-Fu scripts are listed first in each menu, followed by the usual C
plug-ins. This is very distracting.
Would it be possible to avoid this? I would prefer to have the
Perl-Fu scripts separated from the C plug-ins. Either by adding a
separator in the menus, by adding a little mark next to their names,
or by creating a separate Perl-Fu menu similar to the Script-Fu menu.
I am asking for this on the list because I expect that many developers
have different opinions about the placement of Perl-Fu scripts (or
Python-Fu). I think that the Perl-Fu scripts "feel" different from
the C plug-ins and it would be nice to know beforehand if an entry in
a menu is mapped to a C or Perl plug-in. They behave slightly
differently (e.g. undo is not always supported, there is a delay of a
couple of seconds before the plug-in starts) and their parameters
dialog have a different layout compared to most C plug-ins. I suppose
that some of these differences (e.g. the Gimp-Perl logo in the
dialogs) were introduced on purpose to make these scripts stand out
from the others, but then why should they be mixed? I'm not asking
for a vote or anything like that, but I would like to hear some
opinions... (no flames please)