From: Matthijs K. <mat...@st...> - 2007-08-29 11:13:02
|
> I like the plugins.conf approach better because it's more explicit about= =20 > ordering (you don't have to play 05plugin ordering games), and you can ad= d=20 > comments about plugin choices and ordering etc. OTOH, the symlink approac= h=20 > is more easily scripted, so I can see the possibilities there too,=20 > particularly in the debian world. I think we might not want to limit ourselves to either approach. I propose = we do add a plugins.conf or a config variable with a list of plugins (as the experimental v4 does that was posted a while ago). However, instead of only pluging (file) names, you would also allow directory names (recognizab= le by a trailing / perhaps?). If a directory name is encountered, all the files in that directory are treated as if they were explicitely listed in the plu= gin list. This allows both ways, simply specify only a simple plugins/ dir in the plu= gin list for the old behaviour, or specify an explicit list of plugins, or a combination of both. This would also allow for a plugins-available / plugins-enabled scheme (whi= ch is actually really simple, since plugins-available isn't anything special. = The current blosxomv2 already supports this as well by setting $plugin_dir to plugins-enabled). Relating to another part of this thread, would a scheme like this not also = be suited for config files? Instead of specifying a single config dir or file, just allow (a list of) both? On Wed, Aug 29, 2007 at 11:28:44AM +1000, Gavin Carr wrote: Gr. Matthijs |