[vdr] Feature request: suggestion for cPlugin
udo_richter at gmx.de
Sat Aug 20 15:45:58 CEST 2005
Klaus Schmidinger wrote:
> My original arguments regarding the use of dedicated functions were
> dismissed, saying that this would require including header files for
As far as I can tell, Martin's argument is the k.o. criteria for this,
as access to member functions requires both plugins to share a linker
symbol context. Sharing just the headers imho only gives access to
member variables and virtual methods derived from cPlugin. One could use
a function pointer, but thats not really elegant.
> Well, if you take a look at Udo's example plugins, there is
> struct ReportBoredPlugin
> struct AddService
> in both of them. So there's a code duplication right there, and if the
> server decides to change something, the client will have to change it's
> code as well. It will be fun to watch this stuff go through protocol
> changes... ;-)
A dedicated struct is a lot safer than the whole class, as it wont
change that frequently. And the documentation will clearly warn, that
any change to the struct requires changing the ID string too.
> Hmm, still no "oh yes!" feeling here.
> Maybe my original "service" suggestion isn't that obsolete, yet.
Ok, I'll come up with another idea: Why not call it a message interface?
cPlugin::ProcessMessage(...) or cPlugin::Message(...)
> So personally I'd vote for not implementing CallPluginService(), but if you
> absolutely insist, I won't argue any more.
Since most people think it is not needed, I agree to drop it. I've added
it only for completeness anyway.
More information about the vdr