[Geany-devel] geany-plugins depends on GIO
frank at xxxxx
Mon Nov 22 00:18:32 UTC 2010
On Mon, 22 Nov 2010 08:35:34 +1100
Lex Trotman <elextr at 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:
> > 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
> > 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 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??
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.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Devel