Brice Goglin, le Tue 25 Sep 2012 11:08:04 +0200, a écrit : > >> We have the "core_xml" component (generic xml support) and "xml_libxml" > >> + "xml_nolibxml" backends behind that. I am fine with removing the > >> "core_" prefix, but I wonder if we should keep the "xml_" prefix for the > >> latter. > > I'd say we should keep it. Just like I wanted to use core_linux_x86 (as > > opposed to core_linux) > > Keep which one? "core" or "core" and "xml" ?
xml. > > Well, that still looks hardcoded to me. Actually, a simple way would > > be to order all plugins in just one list by priorities. When loading a > > plugin, one checks whether the exclusion point of the plugin was > > already filled or not, and load the plugin accordingly > > The good thing about this is that XML and synthetic can set exclusion > flags on OS+PCI+ADDITIONAL. > But we obviously don't want cuda, ... to set the ADDITIONAL exclusion > flag. So setting a exclusion flag would mean "I don't want any plugin of > this type to be enabled" (different from "I don't want any plugin with > this exclusion flag to be set). Right, like in Debian packages, there are separate "provides" and "conflicts". Usually one both provide and conflict, but one can do either separately. Samuel
