[compiz] Tweaks to plugin dependency rules

Ioannis Nousias s0238762 at sms.ed.ac.uk
Wed Apr 11 12:37:53 PDT 2007

without implying knowledge of the mechanism in use, it seems to me that 
the plugn before/after dependency list can be derived from the 
'features' rules, thus should be removed.

it's better to only look at the features rather than plugins and leave 
it to the core to derive the plugin dependencies from that. Having a 
feature-rule and a plugin-rule means you can express something that 
conflicts (the feature-rule says something and the plugin-rule says the 
opposite) , which implies your representation has some redundancy, which 
should be avoided (a general rule of thumb).

Mike Dransfield wrote:
> It seems to me that the plugin dependencies are not flexible
> enough for most plugins.
> The particular problem I am thinking about is animation/group
> and fade.  They both specify RuleAfter but compiz interprets
> that as 'load after AND require it', there is a Require rule, but
> this relates to features not plugins.
> I would like to propose these changes and definitions, they seem
> more logical unless I am missing something.
> CompPluginRuleBefore - If this plugin is loaded, make sure I am
> loaded before it.
> CompPluginRuleAfter - If this plugin is loaded, make sure I am
> loaded after
> CompPluginRuleRequire - Require this plugin to be loaded if I
> am loaded.  This can be combined with other rules.  This is roughly
> what RuleAfter is now.
> CompPluginRuleRequireFeature - Requires a feature to be
> loaded.
> What do you think?  RuleBefore might be tricky to implement
> because it is checked retrospectively.  It would probably take
> 2 passes for each check, but maybe we could find a better way.
> _______________________________________________
> compiz mailing list
> compiz at lists.freedesktop.org
> http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/compiz

More information about the compiz mailing list