[lsb-discuss] plugins

[Darrin Thompson]

Wichmann, Mats D wrote:
> Although Mozilla isn't a required component of an LSB runtime,
> that was actually the context in which the question was raised:
> if someone wants to make a plugin for Mozilla, can they derive
> any benefit from using the LSB? 

In this specific case, potentially yes.

> Does Mozilla need to be 
> LSB-comforming too before this makes sense?  And in the case
> of Maya, which I don't know much about, does the same question
> apply?

They are not the same. Maya is an app like Adobe Photoshop or Quicken. 
It could well be an LSB Certified Application. Once any of the three 
applications above becomes an LSB certified App, I can begin to rely on 
the behavior of the app remaining consistent across all Linux 
distributions. So if I make a plugin for it, the plugin goes in 
/opt/whetever.../plugins. All the time. End of story. The plugin writer 
is not concerned directly with the LSB.

Mozilla is different. It tends to be an integral part of the runtime, 
and as such it is a candidate for being integrated into a module of the 
LSB Runtime. Therefore Mozilla plugin writers are concerned with the LSB 
Runtime Spec.

> That is, plugins packaged together with an app only
> care about the app, but what if a developer outside such a
> project wants to make a plugin available?
> 

Plugins _not_ packaged together with an app still only care about the 
app. If the app is LSB certified, the plugin writer can make more 
assumptions.

If the app is integrated into the runtime, having the app's location and 
behavior within the runtime standardized still simplifies the plugin 
writer's life, allowing him to make assumptions.

--
Darrin