So the question is:
Do we need an "active" mode for plugins in addition to the engine-supported "open" and "library" options?
If the majority opinion is to keep it we should release this beta as final soon -- please get any bug reports in if you haven't already (the item about the menu references is already on this list -- thank you Klaus). If not, we can remove it and get a last round of testing with a final release soon after.
I see that there is an overwhelming agreement to remove the "active" plugins.
I agree that pretending that such a plugin is a library is a usable workabout (but a workabout nevertheless). At least for plugins that we use for ourselves.
I agree that there is no extreme need for a class of "active" plugins right now (nobody suggested a better label than "active" -- I agree it is not optimal). It might have paved a road for some new uses of plugin stacks (beyond using the plugin menu as simply a convinience launchpad for normal stacks). IMHO it gave almost the same power as Rev's more complicated plugins setup (and no overhead).
But alas, simplicity rules, so be it :(
Robert Brenstein
_______________________________________________ metacard mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.runrev.com/mailman/listinfo/metacard
