You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The idea would be having a "addons" directory, and having each add-on having its own directory under that. (that way we can ignore them with the .gitignore file) and having a basic way for programs to "register" command shell commands and launcher icons, and perhaps when we get around to it, file types in the fileviewer.
The Idea for the user is that these additional utilities should work in a seamless fashion.
the tricky part would be having to run said python programs from the base directory of the repository so they could access the backend and files and whatnot correctly.
This might also help with components not necessarily needed by all users, or components that involve C or some other compiled language.
as far as addon configuration, XML would be a logical choice.
though, this can (and probably should) wait until after v2.0.3. Because we should do this right the first time and not rush this.
Though we should also not wait until we have a mess of disorganized addons.
@SBTCVM/core-devs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Stray idea: a sort of API over pipes. The add-ons could be run with stdin/out piped to the launcher for communication. I have no idea if this could work in Windows.
Basic idea:
The idea would be having a "addons" directory, and having each add-on having its own directory under that. (that way we can ignore them with the .gitignore file) and having a basic way for programs to "register" command shell commands and launcher icons, and perhaps when we get around to it, file types in the fileviewer.
The Idea for the user is that these additional utilities should work in a seamless fashion.
the tricky part would be having to run said python programs from the base directory of the repository so they could access the backend and files and whatnot correctly.
This might also help with components not necessarily needed by all users, or components that involve C or some other compiled language.
as far as addon configuration, XML would be a logical choice.
though, this can (and probably should) wait until after v2.0.3. Because we should do this right the first time and not rush this.
Though we should also not wait until we have a mess of disorganized addons.
@SBTCVM/core-devs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: