[Geany-devel] GObject, new plugin interface .... & Vala bindings
mbrush at xxxxx
Sat Apr 30 07:24:10 UTC 2011
On 04/29/11 10:12, Nick Treleaven wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:01:08 +0200
> Frank Lanitz<frank at frank.uvena.de> wrote:
>>> During the last weeks a huge number mails at this list was stating to
>>> make usage of GObject on building up a new plugin interface. It has been
>>> talked about libpeas and adding support for Vala, Python etc. Before we
> BTW Colomban started work on Vala bindings without changing the
> plugin API:
This has been discussed quite a bit in the thread:
> 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.
I've written/started a few plugins with it so far, for example
geany-multiterm, geany-dbus previously mentioned in the thread, and a
few others, and it's quite nice, although not very "Vala-like" since it
directly wraps the existing non-(G)Object API.
>> 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.
*VERY* disruptive as noted in the thread, if the core code was modified
directly. Regarding preference for GObject, my only thought is that the
plugin API should consider the user of the API rather than the developer
writing the API, unlike in the rest of the core code where it doesn't
matter to the user and more to the developers. In geany-plugins there
is already at least a few plugins which are using GObject C code despite
the current API and IIUC, there would basically be only 1 "mandatory"
GObject class to use a GObject API, the rest of the code could be
> 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).
The idea previously discussed, IIRC, is to make a separate shared
library and also a separate plugin loader, being loaded (for the time
being) as a proper/regular Geany plugin, to minimize the impact to the
core code. I'm pretty sure it would work, but with the current setup
it's just too much trouble (see GeanyPy).
More information about the Devel