On Fri, 09 May 2014 20:34:18 +0200 Thomas Martitz kugel@rockbox.org wrote:
Am 09.05.2014 19:15, schrieb Dimitar Zhekov:
On Fri, 09 May 2014 12:29:58 +0200 Thomas Martitz kugel@rockbox.org wrote:
Unless we are trying to enable scripting in more than a few languages, I see no reason for all these complications. [...]
I accept that the status-quo is fine for you, but not for me and others. IRC discussions repeatedly indicated that proxy plugins are the way to go (the alternative is automagic bindings through gobject introspection which isn't feasible right now).
I don't know the way to go, but there are two things we should not do:
1. Change the interface radically, gedit-style.
2. Introduce serious code changes that won't benefit the users. Proxy plugins may be beneficial at some future point, or we may end up with several poorly-supported languages, and later with unmaintained proxies we dare not remove because that'll kill their sub-plugins.
I suspect we would support 1 (or at most 2) proxy plugins ourself.
I hope by "we" you mean the core plugins. Otherwise, that's no "support" at all.
Other proxy plugins can be maintained by third parties out of tree or in geany-plugins. I do not want to hard-limit the language choice to our blessed one though.
The other proxy plugins will be DOA, except for mini-plugins (macros, scripts) that suit single users. Why should one bother to write a serious, mass-distributable sub-plugin in a 3rd party language, when there are official ones? To risk the proxy plguin being unmaintained?