MUC encryption plugin

[Peter Lawler]

On 12/10/12 03:05, Ethan Blanton wrote:
> Sebastian Lechner spake unto us the following wisdom:

>> My main questions are the following: How would Pidgin/libpurple support
>> the development of a plugin of this type? How high would you rate the
>> chances of success for the development of such a plugin?
>
> We don't generally "support" third party plugins in any way, except
> that we are willing to answer technical questions to the best of our
> abilities.

I by and large concur with Ethan, 'cept for this bit. Well, maybe not 
disagree but I think it's important to detail what these questions and 
answers *might* entail.

Pidgin will answer technical questions if/when they can to best of 
abilities, sure. But if it turns out during that discussion that an API 
sucks, we'd change it. However the code may not change the way that the 
immediate 3rd party plugin author wants or requires. It's possibly more 
likely to be changed to how it'd be more useful to multiple 3rd party 
plugins.

This is to say, it MIGHT transpire in such a situation that a 
problematic API may get rewritten that throws out a bunch of code a 3rd 
party plugin relies on, thus increasing the amount of work the 3rd party 
author needs to do. Flipside, of course, is that it also works that 
sometimes 3rd party code makes it into the core.


Pete.