[Geany-devel] geany-plugins depends on GIO

Lex Trotman elextr at xxxxx
Sun Nov 21 21:35:34 UTC 2010

Hi Frank,

Both your posts combined reply so quote marks are wrong.

>  if you really want to have
> > per-function checks at runtime, if conditions in the code.
> > I think this makes maintenance of such code much harder and so it
> > easier tends to break which makes users even more sad.
> >
> There are lots of requests by plugin devs for access to more of Geany,
> that changes the API/ABI version and that should make all other
> plugins fail until they are updated (but doesn't always, which is
> risky).

Well, this is not true in most cases as of two reasons:
1. We try to keep the A[P|B] for any minor release the smae
2. 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

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??

On 21 November 2010 09:26, Frank Lanitz <frank at frank.uvena.de> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Nov 2010 11:03:37 +1100
> Lex Trotman <elextr at 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??


> Cheers,
> Frank
> --
> Frank Lanitz <frank at frank.uvena.de>
> _______________________________________________
> Geany-devel mailing list
> Geany-devel at uvena.de
> http://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

More information about the Devel mailing list