[Geany-Devel] RFC: Proxy plugins

Matthew Brush mbrush at xxxxx
Sat May 17 02:35:30 UTC 2014

On 14-05-16 06:43 PM, Matthew Brush wrote:
> [snip]
> As mentioned above, this doesn't seem worth the trouble and I don't
> think it would be as easy/useful as it seems on the surface. We could
> just leave the existing loader without breaking anything, it's quite
> stable and works pretty well for plain C plugins that don't want to use
> GObject-ish stuff. We could document the Peas loader and related work as
> provisional while we get it all integrated and working well with the GI
> bindings and still leaving the existing stable C loader in-tact during
> this time and for the foreseeable future.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to imply that we shouldn't make any 
effort towards providing a simple way to adapt existing plugins to use 
the new loader with minimal changes, just that I don't think that this 
mechanism or some compatibility layer for the loader needs to be a 
blocker/priority towards providing an alternative parallel loader that 
eases working in other languages and paves the way for more specific and 
powerful extension points with more idiomatic interfaces and APIs in 
multiple languages.

Matthew Brush

More information about the Devel mailing list