Nikolai Weibull wrote:
* Adam Hooper <adamh densi com> [Aug 19, 2004 13:00]:[Eplugins - Evolution Plugins]- Our extension system, with GObjects and signals, is Really Cool (signals are great). Especially in 1.5 when we'll load/unload them on-the-fly (I promise!)So, are GObjects + signals a better solution? I don't see why having "hooks" solve anything that GObjects + signals can't?
Neither do I. I haven't actually written an Evolution plugin, though, and I only glanced at the unfinished HOWTO for about 10-15 minutes this morning.
But really, I can't think of anything at *all* GObjects+signals can't do, as long as Epiphany itself emits signals in the necessary places (which I assume is what hooks are, anyway).
What stops Epiphany plugins from being written in any language?
We'd need bindings for the Epiphany API (and depending on the extension, we'd need bindings for the Mozilla API too). Beyond that I don't think it would be that big of a problem. We already use C++ in several extensions. I'm tempted to see what I can do with Python... but not anytime soon.
I thought all the bonobo hype was the solution to this, am I missing something vital here?
I never understood bonobo. In Epiphany, afaik, it's used for two things:- Deciding whether to start a new instance of Epiphany or use an existing one
- The Nautilus viewSomeone who knows more, please feel free to correct me on any errors in this email :).
-- Adam Hooper adamh densi com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature