On Thu, Aug 21, 2008 at 4:01 AM, Sjur Moshagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Den 21. aug. 2008 kl. 10.06 skrev Thorsten Scherler: > >>> QUESTIONS: >>> >>> Is this dependency acceptable? >> >> IMO yes, since the plugin is very small and thought a infrastructure >> code. Like you describe the alternative to implement it in the sitemap >> is cumbersome to maintain. > > Are there other opinions? Do we need a vote before we tie ourselves to this > dependency?
In the past I think we've consistently decided against having dependent plugins until we have a facility built in that will manage them properly. I reckon this is due to version incompatibility problems between plugins, etc. >>> How should it/can it be formalised? >> >> Not sure what you mean? > > Whether it is possible to formalize the dependency, such that if the pdf > plugin is specified, forrest will automatically also include other plugins > the pdf plugin is dependent on. But if I remember past discussions > correctly, this isn't possible yet. It is not and I believe this is the issue. There's no way for plugin A to say I require version N of plugin B, for example. Complicating matters, if you have two plugins with dependencies on differing versions of the same plugin, strange things are likely to happen. I believe it's this complication (the devils in the details) that has kept us from having such a capability for so long. I'm not saying we shouldn't change the status quo but I think it's worthy of some discussion first. Having said that, you seem to be on a good roll and I don't want long discussion to slow you down either:) --tim
