KTextEditor Plugins
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
Mon Dec 23 13:55:46 UTC 2013
On Monday 23 December 2013 12:52:01 Dominik Haumann wrote:
> On Sunday 22 December 2013 22:34:50 Milian Wolff wrote:
> > On Saturday 21 December 2013 22:49:42 Christoph Cullmann wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > during the last 10 years, close to zero usable plugins did show up for
> > > KTextEditor. The few existing that are useful, would be better merged
> > > into
> > > the part, instead of having the whole code around to load plugins,
> > > manage
> > > them, ...
> > >
> > > For KF5, I would remove the KTextEditor plugin interface completely.
> > >
> > > It was brought up, that this kills the possibility to have plugins
> > > shared
> > > between Kate / KDevelop.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > I agree that sharing would be a cool thing to have eventually - but it
> > should not be a priority.
> >
> > Rather, I'd argue along a different route on why you should keep - and
> > improve - the existing API, rather than ditching it.
>
> And again, the KTE::Plugins were basically not use at all.
>
> > A plugin API allows for much faster experimenting with new features,
> > similar to what Sven mentioned. I don't need to create a "fork" of Kate
> > in a branch to try out a new feature e.g. New functionality can also
> > first be tested easily by interested people before then integrating it.
>
> In this thread, we are talking a lot about keeping the KTE::Plugin
> interfaces. But we are not talking at all about the use cases. Now we can
> extend the KTE interfaces, but if they are again not used for the next
> release cycle, it's completely wasted time...
<snip>
Yes, you are right. Imo we should save us the time and discuss this properly
during the sprint. I think we are more or less on the same page anyways ;-)
Bye
--
Milian Wolff
mail at milianw.de
http://milianw.de
More information about the KDevelop-devel
mailing list