[Geany-devel] GObject, new plugin interface .... & Vala bindings

[Thomas Martitz]

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.
But this vala bindings are great for sure.

>>> do discuss any further I'd like to point to an email Enrico sent
>>> earlier this year onto this list:
>>>
>>> http://lists.uvena.de/geany-devel/2011-February/003905.html
>>>
>>> Originally Geany wasn't designed/coded to work with GObject. Moving to
>>> an plugin interface using this would most likely cause rewriting of a
>>> lot of code. However, if really somebody of you like to go this
>>> further I suggest to start a new branch where all changes can be
>>> tracked in.
>>> But before we can discuss about the positive/negativ points I just
>>> want to ask who likes to take over this task as a kind of lead
>>> engineer and project manager to be the lead here having in mind it will
>>> most likely not a 5-minute-task?
>> What's the outcome here? I saw a lot of technical discussion followed up
>> by my original posting but nobody took over the rule to bring all the
>> idea into synch. Not sure whether I might did miss something.
> Just to add my point of view:
>
> 1. 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.

> 2. 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?

Best regards.