Hi Masahito, At Mon, 28 Apr 2008 00:05:45 +0900, Masahito Omote wrote: > > 2008/4/27 YAMAMOTO Kengo / YamaKen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > In addition to your simplification, I would like to do some > > more. How about this patch? > (snip) > > The bare responsibility and the renaming will make the uim > > architecture simple. > > I agree all of them but these code are renamed to dynlib.c/scm I think.
I think so too. uim should be purged from the confusable term 'plugin'. plugin.c should be renamed to dynlib.c (or shlib.c or another). But plugin.scm should have another name since it implements the uim-specific module system layer (not dynlib layer). I think that module.scm is appropriate for now. Could you rename it and remove unused legacy procedures in it? Once it have been finished, let's start further discussion and reorganization of the module system (including the suggestion of Iwata-san's patch). > And how do you think the backward compatibility for old plugin APIs, > dropping them quickly in 1.6 or waiting for 2.0 development? In 1.6. Since it does not affect bridge implementations and main IM processings, we can finish it without large impact. > # I cannot understand why (require-module "skk") failed > # in tutcode.scm when running uim-module-manager. :-< Due to the module-name retrieving trick. grep currently-loading-module-name in scm/*.scm to understand what happened. The trick should be replaced with a proper way. ------------------------------------------------ YAMAMOTO Kengo / YamaKen [EMAIL PROTECTED] FAMILY Given / Nick http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_name --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Google Groups "uim-en" group uim-en@googlegroups.com http://groups.google.com/group/uim-en/about -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
