On 03/28/2013 07:17 AM, András Murányi wrote: > On Thu, Mar 28, 2013 at 12:42 PM, SourceForge.net > <[email protected]>wrote: > >> Patches item #3609350, was opened at 2013-03-28 04:42 >> Message generated for change (Tracker Item Submitted) made by zmoelnig >> You can respond by visiting: >> >> https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=478072&aid=3609350&group_id=55736 >> >> Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment >> thread, >> including the initial issue submission, for this request, >> not just the latest update. >> Category: puredata >> Group: bugfix >> Status: Open >> Resolution: None >> Priority: 5 >> Private: No >> Submitted By: IOhannes m zmölnig (zmoelnig) >> Assigned to: Miller Puckette (millerpuckette) >> Summary: prevent recursive loading of gui-plugins >> >> Initial Comment: >> if a gui-plugin loads other plugin, we might easily encounter a recursion >> (where the plugin tries to load itself). >> while the current gui-plugin loader mechanism tries to prevent re-loading >> of the "same" plugin (based on the filename of the plugin), it doesn't >> catch recursive loading. >> the attached patch fixes this, by adding the to-be-loaded plugin to the >> "::loaded_plugins" list, then tries to load it and removes it from the list >> if the loading fails >> (rather than adding the plugin to the list after the loading succeeded) >> >> > > Some minor comments from the perspective of the current plugins-plugin > which you may or may not want to consider: > - the plugin creates a ::plugins_loaded list which is almost the same as > ::loaded_plugins with the difference that "-plugin.tcl" is stripped and, > more importantly, brackets in the name are stripped too because they can > cause weird things when handling the strings in tcl. > - for the sake of tidiness, the plugin introduces a ::plugins namespace > where all the functions go. > - what about splitting the whole plugin stuff out into a new pd_plugins.tcl > so that we don't have to worry too much about bloating pd-gui.tcl? > FYI: current plugins-plugin is cca. 200 lines, of which obligatory protocol > is 20 lines, switching mechanism is 40 lines, meta extraction is 60 lines > and building the dialog box is 70 lines - thought this may assist the > decision about what to maintain inside pd and what to leave in a plugin. > > My 2 cents are that the moving-the-file way of managing is ugly and a list > of enabled plugins shall be maintained in the preferences. Pd-gui could > load everything (or nothing) by default, letting a plugin modify the list. > So it would at the end take only a few extra lines in core pd gui.
Users currently install plugins by putting them in a folder. Plugins are managed via whatever preferred file management the user likes. Plugin managers can easily do the same. Then users who are used to doing it via a file browser will still be able to do that whether or not they are using a plugin manager. And installing and managing plugins both happen by moving files around. There needs to be a consistent experience here, so the management process should not be different than the installation process. I don't see any real advantage to adding complexity to installing plugins when dropping it into a folder is enough. What particular problems are there with using the DISABLED/ folder? .hc _______________________________________________ Pd-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puredata.info/listinfo/pd-dev
