On Sun, Jun 4, 2017 at 3:01 AM, dc0d wrote:
>
> Some clarifications on future of plugins would be nice though.
To be honest I thought plugins would have fewer problems than they
would up having. And in any case the API seems fine, so any reworking
can preserve the API.
I think the future of plu
Thanks for the post! I don't think those caveats could be a setback.
Some clarifications on future of plugins would be nice though.
On Saturday, June 3, 2017 at 6:32:22 PM UTC+4:30, Nick Groenen wrote:
>
> On 2017-06-02 19:24:40, Michael Brown wrote:
> >Do you have any references on the stabili
On 2017-06-02 19:24:40, Michael Brown wrote:
Do you have any references on the stability of the current plugin system
that I can use for reference? I'm building a system now that I contemplate
using with some plugins and I'd like to know up front the challenges.
I wrote a blogpost on plugins e
The best real world example I know of mixing cgo and plugins is
https://github.com/eawsy/aws-lambda-go-shim and it works pretty well.
It compiles a go program as a native library using cgo, which is loading some
more golang code compiled as a plugin.
The native library also happens to implement
Do you have any references on the stability of the current plugin system
that I can use for reference? I'm building a system now that I contemplate
using with some plugins and I'd like to know up front the challenges.
On Friday, June 2, 2017 at 7:39:40 PM UTC-5, Ian Lance Taylor wrote:
>
> On Fr
On Fri, Jun 2, 2017 at 3:55 PM, dc0d wrote:
>
> Assuming we have some cgo packages, is it fine to place them inside a plugin
> (added in Go 1.8)?
>
> It seems to ease deployment (on the same platform) and save some compilation
> time. But I'm not sure if it's safe to do so, mixing cgo & plugins.
Assuming we have some *cgo* packages, is it fine to place them inside a
plugin (added in Go 1.8)?
It seems to ease deployment (on the same platform) and save some
compilation time. But I'm not sure if it's safe to do so, mixing cgo &
plugins.
--
You received this message because you are subsc