Hi, > What are the major pros/cons of using this method over plain old > libraries?
They plug into the normal plugin infrastructure and don't add the need for plugin writers to mess around with dlopen(), dlsym() and such. Basically, they work like normal libraries and look like a plugin. A large advantage is that every plugin gets a notify whenever a library plugin is loaded or unloaded. > Do you have any other library plugins other than text? Or what do you > plan for other types of library plugin? It seems like only text and group > use this at the moment. Currently the only library plugin is text. In the future however, there could be library plugins like "window move animation" which provides means for the move animation currently found in scale, switcher and such (that animation which is adjustable by speed & timestep). That way, this animation code would only be needed once. Cornelius even suggested breaking animation into subplugins by using that library plugin approach. Each separate animation would get its own subplugin then, and animation.c would only provide the framework to glue them together. And in Beryl, the text plugin is not only used by group, but also by switcher and scale. I could provide a patch which adds text display support (on hovering) to scale, but that patch would need the text plugin which is a bit problematic if scale is considered a core plugin and text isn't ;-) Regards, Danny _______________________________________________ compiz mailing list compiz@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz
