This part was missing from the quote:
"It should be noted that in most cases adding NSM support is super easy
(for just load/save, no switch)."
On 4/29/20 10:39 AM, rosea.grammostola wrote:
A quote by Jonathan in a background discussion about the :switch:
option in the NSM API which could be useful for others I think:
"Some applications will have architectural flaws that prevent "switch"
from being feasible without additional effort, but that's fine, they
can just leave out the :switch: capability and NSM will handle it.
NSM 'handles' it, but just killing and relaunching the application.
Which is a stupid thing to do, but that's all that the other SMs ever
supported. People implement "switch" because they see the logic and
value in it and have pride that their software can change projects
without crashing, leaking memory, etc. Yes, I would say if the
software is architecturally flawed in a way that makes adding "switch"
difficult, then it should be omitted at first and added later as the
architecture is improved (if that's a compatible project goal). The
Hydrogen thing you sent me is a good example of that. I'm impressed
that they're trying to fix the problems that prevent switch from
working, and that's a good thing for the quality of the project, but
it isn't strictly necessary to do in order to work with NSM.
Personally, I would prefer all clients to support switch, because it
improves the user experience and performance."
http://non.tuxfamily.org/nsm/API.html
