From: Greg B. <gr...@vi...> - 2009-02-04 00:58:20
|
Sebastian Trüg wrote: > yes, but they are no QObjects. I decided to keep the interface as small as > possible. Mostly to allow plugin implementations to inherit from subclasses of > QObject. Again this might not be the best solution. That's exactly the thing, though. The interfaces may not be QObjects, but the base object exposed as part of Q_EXPORT_PLUGIN2() is a QObject (e.g. Soprano::Redland::BackendPlugin), and if I'm not mistaken, that's currently what you're dynamic_casting in PluginStub::plugin(). > In any case it would be great if we could fix the PluginManager to work for > Windows in 2.2.2 and then think about an updated plugin system for 2.3. > Question is however, if it is worth the trouble or if we should simply create > new parser/serializer plugins based on the old plugin system. Yeah, sorry, I didn't mean to start a discussion on redesigning the whole plug-in system. One thing at a time. > well, I am declaring interfaces using Q_DECLARE_INTERFACE, even with a version > string. Like I said: I cant really remember the actual reason for me to use > the desktop files. I think I was not able to really make it work back then. > Not sure. Yeah, looking at it now I see you do have it all set up and ready to go. It looks like you already have everything in place that you would need, so I think qobject_cast<> should be no problem if you choose to use it. |