On Mon Aug 19 05:21 PM, Ian Clelland wrote: > On Mon, Aug 19, 2013 at 4:43 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > I don't think that we should replace Java code with XML. This is a > > lot different than just reading constants from an XML file. If you're > > going to mess around with the webview, you should be forced to > > understand what you're doing. It's already bad enough that hardly > > anybody reads the plugin code before they cram it into their projects. > > > > It's not replacing Java code with XML -- if anything, it's *more* Java > code :). > Just using reflection to instantiate the correct classes, > exactly like plugin > installation / invocation.
I'm somewhat for the idea but it seems too early to start thinking how this would be implemented. Maybe it turns out there's only 2-5 plugins that would need this. One thing that could help is an <experimental></experimental> section in plugin.xml to try different approaches. That part could break at any time, if there's eventually consensus on the feature and syntax, it gets merged in plugin.xml
