Boris Koenig wrote: > Erik Hofman wrote: > > I'm still not convinced that a plugin system would be such a great > > idea for FlightGear. > > Well, I am just making suggestion :-)
I think most of the criticism centers on the idea that, even if you had a nice plugin system available, it really isn't going to help you very much with doing extension development. It doesn't change the existing Nasal or FGCommand interfaces at all, and adds an extra layer of complication. Basically, you have to write a little extra code to avoid typing "make" quite as often. That's not a very good tradeoff. The idea of a "plugin" comes from the commercial software world, where distinct entities (Microsoft and aircraft vendors, for example) need to ship software on different schedules. It's a solution to a problem that, honestly, we don't have yet. We aren't that big. I think as you get used to the existing architecture, you will find that most of the "extensions" you are thinking of are best implemented as augmentations (or even rewrites) of pre-existing code instead of pluggable, not-quite-orthogonal extra features. Andy _______________________________________________ Flightgear-devel mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.flightgear.org/mailman/listinfo/flightgear-devel
