[Compcomm] Building and using the compiz-plugins-premerge stuff

[Erkin Bahceci]

Hi,

What about the new metadata stuff (that Annotate already uses for
example)? Doesn't that make bcop obsolete? Is it the better way to do
options now? I want to simplify the option processing in Animation,
and am wondering what the better way is (I'd prefer not having extra
dependencies though).

Regards,
Erkin

On 4/24/07, Danny Baumann <dannybaumann at web.de> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> > I think you are looking at this from a developer of bcop
> > and a developer of plugins, the 2 roles need to be separated
> > somehow.
> >
> > To help explain my nightmare scenario look at this situation.
> >
> > A plugin developer is working hard to finish his/her wonder
> > plugin.  They have finished, but then notice a change in the
> > core so they update to check for compatibility.  The change
> > affects the bcop generated code and they need a significant
> > update to bcop before they can proceed or get their code
> > working.
>
> That's right, but it doesn't matter THAT much if you need a significant
> update in BCOP or a significant update in each plugin's code. You are
> right that using BCOP introduces some dependencies, but honestly I think
> the cases where a big pressure exists to release a plugin until day X
> are pretty rare. In that case, an older version of core could be used in
> any case.
> Developers are free to choose which route to go - either the "have a bit
> more dependencies, but coding is easier and code may look cleaner" one
> or the "no dependencies, I prefer to code my stuff for myself" one.
>
> > > Don't you think using the metadata which must be present anyway to
> > > generate that boring code part is much more elegant than having to write
> > > the code by yourself?
> > >
> >
> > I am very glad it is all optional and it will be possible to
> > have it as a separate file or include it in the code, it looks
> > like a good solution that considers everyones needs.
> >
> > I believe that autogenerated code is the spawn of satan and
> > code generated from xml is the spawn of satan with knobs on
> > to sell to suits.  Sorry, but thats my religion ;)
>
> Noone forces you to use BCOP ;-)
>
> > Which to me says that bcop is now off-spec totally and you
> > seem to be looking for problems to your solution.  Either
> > way you are free to do what you like, but I cannot see many
> > developers using bcop.  To be honest it looks like its perfect
> > for group, but not much else.
>
> It's off the original goal, but still makes definitely sense to me and a
> number of other people. Programs evolving in a different direction than
> the original plan was is not always a bad thing ;-)
> I think it's pretty hard to tell whether future developers will choose
> BCOP or not given the pretty minor number of current plugin developers.
> And I also do not really see the difference between group and other
> plugins when it comes to BCOP usage - perhaps you can shed a bit of
> light on that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Danny
>
> _______________________________________________
> CompComm mailing list
> CompComm at Rock3d.org
> http://www.ubaight.com/mailman/listinfo/compcomm
>