[sldev] Plan for executable switcher

Peekay Semyorka peekay at targetomega.com
Fri Feb 23 01:02:31 PST 2007


Dale Glass wrote:
> Eventually, it's easy enough to end up with a situation where my changes
> conflict with somebody else's, or do something undesirable with the
> original executable.

My concern is such a 'switcher' amounts to the exact opposite of a plug-in
infrastructure; i.e., a mechanism where many plug-ins could co-exist at
runtime (and maybe even 'co-operate' with each other through shared
structures.)

What's being proposed instead means only one feature-set could ever be
active at one time.  Either your set of changes or mine (or Jack's or
Jill's) but never more than one.

Ideally I'd like to see a framework where many plug-in "bundles" could
co-exist, as long as each conforms to a well-defined API.  (A "bundle"
being a portable structure to deliver a plug-in along with its
configuration, resources, and dependencies).

For feature-sets which cannot be implemented within the plug-in framework
(and wholesale downloading is to be avoided), then it would be cleaner if
its installer would simply make a copy of the the SL distribution and
modify the new copy to suit its needs.

-peekay








More information about the SLDev mailing list