Re: RFC DQ Pluggability
|
Thanks Aaron, Apologies for the delay in getting to read this properly - for reference to the group this is the link to the document: From my point of view I think it would be useful to get some visibility on what the proposed function prototypes will look like at the hook points. There are several method names in there which is good but proposed arguments which will be passed to the plugin methods will probably be the thing of most interest to bridge developers who will want to take advantage of this functionality and may want a series of objects to be made available which may be more than what is required for the DQ use case alone. Consider the fact that these plugin methods once created will be fairly set in stone, otherwise we'll end up going down the functionNameEx road again or mandatory bridge changes which nobody wants. It may be a lot easier to add additional arguments (if necessary) at this point even if they aren't required for this use case. Cheers, Frank
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:01 AM, Aaron Sneddon <asneddon@...> wrote:
|
|
|