Aaron Chambers
Aaron Chambers
Hi. Is there any intention to address this? I'm experiencing the same thing and it's certainly decreasing the usefulness of the svg viewer. Very much like the idea of this...
I think I might be a bit slow in the uptake here, can you help me understand the use case we’re talking about here?
Ah got ya. Thanks for the extra context @kellyselden
I'm not sure the proposed change is actually accurate. I need to refamiliarise myself with the code and come back to this with more context though.
@lukemelia said: > @achambers perhaps the RFC should include an example of how one would extend from the base plugin class when defining an inline plugin. I was trying to...
@lukemelia Just re-reading your comment again and noticed I misinterpreted your questions slightly. > is this the same as subclassing an existing plugin? The second part is not the same...
> OR the ability to access and mutate instances after instantiation, but not a novel way of extending a plugin. This is interesting. I'd like to explore this. Instead of:...
In regards to the naming, I guess the two potential paths we could take are: 1. `Plugin` > `PluginInstance` or; 2. `PluginFactory` > `Plugin` Currently, `1` is how we have...
@lukemelia said > I think we should split off/defer the concept of mutating plugins to a separate effort. I don't like any of the solutions we've come up with yet,...
@lukemelia I'm having a little internal debate with myself. Wondering if you could enlighten me with your thoughts. The `pipeline.inlinePlugins` array contains an object that is the same shape as...