[Geany] Source folding
Nexu
nexu.jin at xxxxx
Thu Jul 20 21:26:08 UTC 2006
On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 15:53 -0300, Alexandre Moreira wrote:
>
>
> 2006/7/20, Alexandre Moreira <alexandream at gmail.com>:
> Oh, I forgot a few things too:
>
> 2006/7/20, Alexandre Moreira <alexandream at gmail.com>:
>
>
>
> 2006/7/20, Nexu <nexu.jin at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, 2006-07-20 at 19:45 +0200, Enrico
> Tröger wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 13:51:11 -0300,
> "Alexandre Moreira"
> > <alexandream at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > it is so cool, that you all want to extend
> Geany, but please give us a
> > little bit time to make it ready for this.
> >
> > > scripts in, say, Python or TCL (or even C
> plugins).
> > I prefer Python(because so many people like
> it, there must be
> > something magic with it) _and_ C plugins.
> >
> > But as mentioned earlier, this whole stuff
> is not really important at
> > the moment, at least not for me and Nick.
> > I want to finish the 0.8 release soon(but
> without hurrying), then
> > reduce the length of the todo list and
> finally implement project
> > management. Then getting it stable, so that
> 1.0 can be released.
> >
> > After that, or while getting 1.0 stable, we
> should think about a
> > reasonable plugin concept.
> >
> > I really like the idea of plugins, but at
> the moment it is too early
> > for it.
>
> Thanks for the answers and responses. I'm
> looking forward to test the
> project management functionality.
>
> Personally i think you guys should consider
> including the mentioned
> plug-in system with 1.0 release (after
> everything else on the TODO list
> is done) so it is a basic part of Geany.
>
> I would vote against this. Geany already has a release
> plan, and I think we should stick to it. First of all,
> it was not the interest of the main devs to make it a
> complex system, at least not on 1.0. Second, it would
> be needed a *LOT* of hooks in the system for it to be
> acessible for plugins, and it is not the kind of
> re-engeneering I think we need while on 0.8, at least
> not when focusing to 1.0.
>
>
> Also consider D-Bus as a
> plug-ins interface as this allows more
> languages to be used to write
> plug-ins with (any language that D-Bus got
> bindings for).
>
> I never considered this as an option and then, when
> you mentioned it a whole lot of possibilities exploded
> in my mind. Thanks very much, Nexu, for you made me
> address a lot of stuff I had in mind for my own
> personal project (A game server).
>
> I ended up thanking Nexu for something but forgot to discuss
> the meaning of this idea in Geany context. Don't think D-Bus
> would be a good way for Geany to implement it, at least not as
> long as it strives to be multi-platform. For all I know D-Bus
> is still very much binded to the Linux platform (but, please,
> correct me if I am wrong).
>
> And here I am again (sorry, if I were less anxious to answer I would
> post a single message). I found out that DBus has implementations in
> FreeBSD/NetBSD/MacOSx/Windows, although I don't know the state of them
> all, so I was speaking nonsense in the last e-mail.
>
> But again, I really believe we should drop this kind of discussion
> until we get on planning the plugin system (and that would be post
> 1.0, probably one major version after it).
Just some additional info about D-Bus status for Alexandre:
D-Bus 0.90 was just released this week. With that, they have also
announced API freeze. They're working hard on win32 port from what i can
tell on their ML. Someone has also announced on their ML about XPCOM
bindings for D-Bus and than there are is work in progress on the PHP
bindings.. From IRC, i notice lots of development on the Java bindings.
(It's btw "D-Bus" according to the developers and not "DBus")
But for now i can live without a plug-in system. It's not a vital
requirement.
PS, what is that game server project you mentioned Alexandre?
More information about the Users
mailing list