[sldev] Re: Plugin work so far.

Soft Noel soft at softnoel.org
Tue Feb 27 07:28:42 PST 2007

On Tue, February 27, 2007 7:09 am, Argent Stonecutter wrote:
>> If we do export functions to be used in the Plugin DLLs, we may want
>> to export C methods only rather than C++ classes.
> This would also make gluing the plugin code to other languages
> (especially scripting languages) infinitely easier.
> Continuing on to Soft Noel's comment, then. I think that plugin
> initialization and callback should use as language-independant and
> API as possible, and ironically these days that lowest common
> denominator happens to be a programming language called C. No
> classes, just "old fashioned structs" and pointers to old fashioned
> functions.

I'd envisioned scripting systems and other plugins being built against a
library-side plugin SDK, not directly making/receiving calls. As I said in
my message, it's not a deal breaker -- transitioning between the two isn't
much more than a search and replace operation.

> I agree that explicitly registering hooks is definitely the way to
> go, but the hooks really need to use some kind of formal
> encapsulation of parameters. I suggested one, but it seems that
> Linden Labs has one already so we should use it.

Any chance you can quote the message you referred to for this? Scanning
back through the list archives, I think I'm missing something.

More information about the SLDev mailing list