O Lun, 12-07-2010 ás 09:48 +0200, Juan A. Suarez Romero escribiu: > > d) is pretty weird. > > Agree. > > > > > e) is another option although I have a weird feeling about it (packaging a -dev > > package from a plugin that is specific to use one feature of that plugin goes > > a bit against the generic purpose of grilo and feels like we are addressing > > something in grilo that is totally out of its scope). > > My feeling is that it is out of grilo's scope, because it is not in the > core. Yes, it is included in one of the plugins, but I wouldn't say that > plugins are part of the "core" of Grilo. Rather, I would say that they > are part of standard or official set of plugins. > > In any case, I was very careful about separating this library from the > rest of plugins. Unfortunately, as plugins are all in the same > repository and not one plugin per repository, maybe one can feel that > this helper is part of all plugins; but it wasn't the case. I completely agree with Juan about it being completely out of Grilo's scope so apps could get the token the way they want. But I also think it is a good idea to provide a way either in flickr plugin or in a separate library. For me, having it in the library would only mean that the plugin .so would also contain the helper functions which I don't consider weird. What we'd need is providing access to the .h files and maybe creating a separate grilo-plugins-dev package to include them, but I don't really care about where those two functions are included. Creating a separate library? It could be good if we had more helper functions in other plugins, but I really think it is too much for a couple of helper functions. Maybe in the future... Br. -- Xabier Rodríguez Calvar Enxeñeiro en Informática IGALIA http://www.igalia.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part