On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:35:34 +1100 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
Both your posts combined reply so quote marks are wrong.
Bad idea in terms of keeping the thread. Well...
Well, this is not true in most cases as of two reasons:
- We try to keep the A[P|B] for any minor release the smae
- ABI/API changes are done with new releases so a recompilation is
reasonable. In most cases there don't need to be any code touched on plugin.
So you are saying that all plugins should be part of and maintained by Geany or Geany Plugins so that recompiles remain in sync?? Have you got the maintenance effort??
No. I want to say, it doesn't matter in case of there is really a bug which needs to have the ABI increased every plugin needs to be recompiled. E.g. lets say there is something in plugin_init() ..
On 21 November 2010 09:26, Frank Lanitz frank@frank.uvena.de wrote:
On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:03:37 +1100 Lex Trotman elextr@gmail.com wrote:
But it is effectively forced because any change to the ABI prevents plugins from working, so they have to be updated. And an ABI change might only be a bugfix. Requiring the whole ABI stability is a pretty onerous requirement.
If you need to break ABI with a bugfix, I assume also your suggestion will end up in a recompilation of plugins as its really appears to be a major problem.
Yes but why do you have to recompile all plugins that don't use the function/struct that was bugfixed??
If something changes the ABI, I'm sure its not only effecting one single function. I don't want to think about the effort to implement a way of complete encapsulation to prevent this.
Cheers, Frank