Hi, Lourens Veen <lourens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes: > > at least with the current design there is tremendous difference: a tool > > is just a function in the gimp core while a plug-in is a separate process. > > A tool can do just everything, a plug-in is limited to the libgimp API. > > Ah, right. So distributing tools through the plug-in manager is nonsense > then. Thanks. I said "with the current design". A plug-in manager should definitely be designed to also work for pluggable tools (Bex, how would I spell this correctly?) which is something we definitely want to have in the future. This brings the question back up: how is a plug-in different from a plugable tool? I'd say, a tool allows the user to do image manipulation directly on the image window. It needs a different (not yet existant) API to be able to do this. Another nice question is: how is a script different from a plug-in? I tend to call perl scripts scripts while other people call them plug-ins. Anyway, a plug-in manager should be able to handle scripts as well. Salut, Sven
