On Thursday 11 June 2009 22:07:41 Mike Bush wrote: > On Thu, 2009-06-11 at 13:35 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > On Thursday 11 June 2009 09:53:51 VolodyA! V Anarhist wrote: > > > > Nextgens has pointed out that this is going to make it harder to build > > > > a proper plugin API with no shared code and only interfaces. Any > > > > suggestions for how to make this easy for plugins without them having > > > > to inherit classes from Freenet itself? > > > > > > Why is it so bad to inherit something? Look at the design of something > > > like > > > Google Android, not only do you have to inherit whole bunch of stuff, but > > > you > > > are locked in the design pattern by it. > > > > Because it makes isolating plugins from the node code via classloader hacks > > more difficult? Eventually we want to be able to support "untrusted" > > plugins... > > I would like to localise the search interface, should I wait until a > plan is made for how to do this or just implement a quick method such as > array of keys and arrays for languages. There aren't many strings so i > suppose it wouldnt be a problem.
Well ideally you would implement a good way to solve it for all plugins... If you are in a hurry, just copy the L10n code from the node? It won't be *complete* without integration into the translation page, which is significant work as I described... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090612/cfc88e86/attachment.pgp>
