-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Anders Olofsson wrote: > > Looks good but I have a few comments as well. > > * Adding features to the API should not stop older plugins from loading > as long as the new API is still backwards compatible with the version > required by the plugin.
If I may ask: why even bother with API and - even harder - ABI compatibility? How many plugins from how many different sources are there gonna be? Will they be so many, that it's impossible to manage them in a single distribution? Plugins are a good way to keep a clean spearation of a core and optional features or providing different means to an end (e.g. different GUIs). But they don't automatically mean, that there has to be a backwards compatible API and it doesn't mean that there has to be an ABI. This is open source. There's nothing preventing one from compiling the plugins with the core on the same system. So it's feasible to just ship all known plugins with the core and make just the loading optional. This model even works for the whole Linux kernel with thousands of drivers written by at least hundreds of different contributors. I can hardly see licq growing bigger than that. Providing backwards compatible APIs and ABIs ain't fun. It's difficult and tedious work which steals developer's time that may be better spent on improvements. Don't forget, that licq does not only run on a single architecture. You should at least listen to my advice and not do it unless you're really sure that this is absolutely needed. Oh and thanks for your great work so far :) Stefan -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD4DBQFF0kMl1QuEJQQMVrgRAotOAJ4/X6aPALWmQkqv1pmLmI9yWxkvXQCXUAT5 hMheJv0F8Nf3SLly8gYgZQ== =7VNX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
