You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@wookie.apache.org by Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> on 2010/02/24 10:49:34 UTC
Plugins are not plugins (part 2)
A good while ago we seemed to agree that the name "plugin" is not a good
name. It creates considerable confusion for people new to Wookie as it
seems to imply that it is a way of plugging in functionality to Wookie.
In fact it is about creating plugins for other platforms so they can
work with Wookie widgets.
On the other hand, from the point of view of the finished code they are
indeed plugins (just not for Wookie).
With my proposal to create frameworks for different languages to allow
easy plugin development this problem becomes more accute. We will have
code in our repository that refers to plugins.
I've started hacking a Java implementation of my framework proposal. in
this work I have used the package name:
org.apache.wookie.connector.framework
The idea is we can say something like "To implement a plugin for your
preferred environment select the appropriate connector framework for
your programming language and implement the IWookiePluginService class."
Comments/thoughts on this?
Ross
Re: Plugins are not plugins (part 2)
Posted by csev <cs...@umich.edu>.
A term used in the Pluto world for this kind of thing is an "SPI" - "System Program Interface" - A highly structured and well specified interface designed to allow something to plug into or be plugged into the "System" - but not an interface for "Applications".
In Pluto the idea of SPI also included the contract that it might change slowly - a little faster than the expected rate of non-upwards compatible change in an API.
It made a lot of sense.
I am not sure SPI is the best word here - but I through it out for consideration by folks more "considered" than me :)
/Chuck
On Feb 24, 2010, at 9:49 AM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> A good while ago we seemed to agree that the name "plugin" is not a good name. It creates considerable confusion for people new to Wookie as it seems to imply that it is a way of plugging in functionality to Wookie. In fact it is about creating plugins for other platforms so they can work with Wookie widgets.
>
> On the other hand, from the point of view of the finished code they are indeed plugins (just not for Wookie).
>
> With my proposal to create frameworks for different languages to allow easy plugin development this problem becomes more accute. We will have code in our repository that refers to plugins.
>
> I've started hacking a Java implementation of my framework proposal. in this work I have used the package name:
>
> org.apache.wookie.connector.framework
>
> The idea is we can say something like "To implement a plugin for your preferred environment select the appropriate connector framework for your programming language and implement the IWookiePluginService class."
>
> Comments/thoughts on this?
>
> Ross
>
>
Re: Plugins are not plugins (part 2)
Posted by Hugh Barnard <hu...@googlemail.com>.
Hi Ross, folks
I think these are 'connectors' or 'gateways' in my vocabulary, 'interfaces'
or 'hooks' used to be OK in about 1970s/1980s but are a bit too generic
now..maybe there should be a naming competition?
Best regards Hugh
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 4:49 PM, Ross Gardler <rg...@apache.org> wrote:
> A good while ago we seemed to agree that the name "plugin" is not a good
> name. It creates considerable confusion for people new to Wookie as it seems
> to imply that it is a way of plugging in functionality to Wookie. In fact it
> is about creating plugins for other platforms so they can work with Wookie
> widgets.
>
> On the other hand, from the point of view of the finished code they are
> indeed plugins (just not for Wookie).
>
> With my proposal to create frameworks for different languages to allow easy
> plugin development this problem becomes more accute. We will have code in
> our repository that refers to plugins.
>
> I've started hacking a Java implementation of my framework proposal. in
> this work I have used the package name:
>
> org.apache.wookie.connector.framework
>
> The idea is we can say something like "To implement a plugin for your
> preferred environment select the appropriate connector framework for your
> programming language and implement the IWookiePluginService class."
>
> Comments/thoughts on this?
>
> Ross
>
--
http://www.hughbarnard.org
http://www.big-wave-heuristics.com/
http://www.hackney-environment-network.org.uk/
Re: Plugins are not plugins (part 2)
Posted by Scott Wilson <sc...@gmail.com>.
On 24 Feb 2010, at 09:49, Ross Gardler wrote:
> A good while ago we seemed to agree that the name "plugin" is not a
> good name. It creates considerable confusion for people new to
> Wookie as it seems to imply that it is a way of plugging in
> functionality to Wookie. In fact it is about creating plugins for
> other platforms so they can work with Wookie widgets.
>
> On the other hand, from the point of view of the finished code they
> are indeed plugins (just not for Wookie).
>
> With my proposal to create frameworks for different languages to
> allow easy plugin development this problem becomes more accute. We
> will have code in our repository that refers to plugins.
>
> I've started hacking a Java implementation of my framework proposal.
> in this work I have used the package name:
>
> org.apache.wookie.connector.framework
>
> The idea is we can say something like "To implement a plugin for
> your preferred environment select the appropriate connector
> framework for your programming language and implement the
> IWookiePluginService class."
I guite like that - for Wookie its a connector framework, for the
target system its a plugin.
>
> Comments/thoughts on this?
>
> Ross