On Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:19:00 +0200 Thomas Martitz thomas.martitz@student.htw-berlin.de wrote:
Am 29.04.2011 19:12, schrieb Nick Treleaven:
I think this is great. It might be doable to maintain this with Geany's API when ready. This would be a big leap forward for plugin writers, and little/no impact on the existing API.
Will Geany's API ever be ready? I doubt so, especially at this development rate.
I was talking about the Vala API being ready. Maybe it is already.
Just to add my point of view:
- I think this would be very disruptive to both Geany's core and
existing plugins. I also really don't like GObject code in C.
Wasn't the idea to implement the GObject interface one by one, maintaining the current one in the meantime (and a bit after)? You can also always do compatibility magic with cpp or some sort. I don't see it disruptive for plugin writers.
- Would it actually work? Geany is not a shared library, so this
might cause problems for dynamic language bindings. Until this and perhaps other issues are dealt with, we should not start on using GObject IMO. (To prove dynamic bindings would be possible, a minimal binding for the current API could be made).
It works for all other the programs (e.g. gedit) too, doesn't it?
I don't hope you just killed all hope with your mail, we basically already agreed this would be a nice thing to have, no?
I was just adding my thoughts. At the time I was too busy to read the list so didn't contribute. Obviously I'm not going to override everyone else, and there may be solutions to the issues I see.
Regards, Nick