/soc/2013/ankitkv/gobjectification: 20188870cc4b: Bump the GPlug...
eion at robbmob.com
Sun Aug 4 06:51:17 EDT 2013
So if plugin types are dropped, will prpl's just have to create a concrete
extension of the PurplePluginProtocolInfo abstract class instead?
On 3 August 2013 12:09, John Bailey <rekkanoryo at rekkanoryo.org> wrote:
> On 08/02/2013 04:41 AM, Ankit Vani wrote:
> > Also, I would like to note that there will be no such thing as a 'prpl'
> in the
> > new API. Plugins do not necessarily have to belong to any of the old
> types such
> > as 'protocol', 'loader', 'standard' etc. I haven't started working on the
> > protocol API yet (for now PurplePluginProtocolInfo in itself represents a
> > protocol), but plugins will be able to register and unregister protocols
> and do
> > other things too if necessary. Whether this is a good idea or not for a
> > it made sense to remove this restriction. :)
> > Ankit
> If the distinction between plugin types is removed, I don't see a reason to
> allow disabling plugins. I know this may complicate matters for Adium, who
> disable plugins and build static prpls, but special-casing a few plugins
> in the
> configure script seems pointless if there's no artificial distinction
> between a
> regular plugin and a prpl.
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at pidgin.im
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Devel