On Mon, Oct 1, 2018 at 2:35 PM Robert Butts <[email protected]> wrote: > > >there's the question of the plugin interface versioning. How will we be > versioning the plugin interface with guarantees to not break any plugins > outside of our repo? > > The way Grove handles that, which I also put in this README, is by > recommending people prefix plugins with either their organization name, or > a GUID. The plugin interface shouldn't ever have hooks or variables > removed; but if it does, we should be able to follow the usual > deprecate-then-remove cycle. > > >Should we start out by tagging this plugin framework as experimental so > that we don't really provide any compatibility guarantees while we're still > working out the kinks? > > I honestly don't think that's necessary, I can't imagine any of the > existing data or hooks being removed, and it simply wasn't a problem in > Grove or the Monitor. We just added hook functions and data as we needed > them.
Sounds good, I just wanted to make sure plugin compatibility was considered, and it sounds like it has been. I don't really have any other thoughts or concerns now that there's some initial documentation and even the microservice example. Thanks!
