Re: [gedit-list] Gedit Plugins - Unofficial Enhancement Proposal

["Trond Danielsen" <trond danielsen gmail com>]

2007/2/23, Steve Frécinaux <nudrema gmail com>:
> On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 12:11 +0100, Trond Danielsen wrote:
> > 2007/2/23, Steve Frécinaux <nudrema gmail com>:
> > > On Fri, 2007-02-23 at 00:40 +0000, Zeth Green wrote:
> > > > 1. Single Plugin Format
> > > >
> > > > All plugins have a .gedit-plugin file. However, beyond that, at the
> > > > moment, plugins can be organised in two ways. They can be a single
> > > > file, or they can be a directory. This inconsistency will make it very
> > > > complicated for graphical plugin installation and especially
> > > > uninstallation.
> > > >
> > > > I propose a single format. All plugins will basically follow the
> > > > directory approach, but the gedit-plugin file will be inside the
> > > > directory.
> > >
> > > This is mostly an implementation matter. If you have some graphical
> > > plugin manager, he will deal with that by itself. You download the
> > > tarball and the GUI installs it correctly. That's how the theme manager
> > > works fwiw and there is no problem about that. BTW you seem to forget
> > > there are also C plugins (yeah, a third "format", even harder to
> > > install).
> > >
> >
> > Wouldn't it be easier to add and remove plugins if the plugin engine
> > did a recursive search through the plugin folders? That way each
> > plugin could be installed in separate folder, instead of having all
> > .gedit-plugin files in the "root" folder?
>
> Maybe, the remaining issue is that the directory tree can be quite deep
> (for python plugins, or useless data, or whatever)
> Anyway it's true we could have one dir per plugin, then "recurse" only
> to the first subdirectory, while remaining compatible with the current
> system (backward compatibility matters)
>
> Patches encouraged ;-)
Working on it...


--
Trond Danielsen