Re: [PATCH 0/2] Move and rename the plugins' XML file


On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 13:49 +0200, Juan A. Suarez Romero wrote:
> On Wed, 2010-06-16 at 08:05 +0200, Iago Toral wrote:
> > I think mapping the library name and the xml name is not a problem,
> > actually 
> > I think it is better: knowing one you know the other. Also, I don't
> > see any 
> > benefit in being able to have a different name for the xml file, which
> > is also 
> > constraint to the plugin id now anyway...
> > 
> > And with this approach we have to define the plugin ids in the
> > 
> > file instead of defining them in the plugin code... not sure if I like
> > that 
> > either. 
> So any news about this?
> Joaquim, do you think it is better to keep with this change, or just
> revert it as Iago suggests?

I think it is better to be able to give a different name to the XML than
the libraries' compiled prefix.
I think the ID is a more appropriate name for the XML file because the
ID is what identifies a plugin, not its compiled name.

About the ID being in the configure, I don't have a strong opinion,
obviously, in the code its clearer but in order to avoid repetition I've
done that with autotools. Of course, this is our set of plugins, other
developers can use another way to set the XML's name and plugin's ID.

A third option is to give the grl-plugin-register a new argument holding
the plugin's XML file name. This way, it could receive any wanted name.
I think this would be too much but indeed offers more flexibility.

Anyone else care to share their opinion?


Joaquim Rocha

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]