News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Putty maintainer on his attitude towards security and open source. Parent comment

Re:Putty maintainer on his attitude towards security and ope... by nradov on Sunday December 12, 2021 @04:30PM (#29533826)
Another alternative is to build a stable plug-in API rather than handling such requests in the core product. That way users with particular needs can code their own plug-ins rather than forking the entire code base. Now obviously open source maintainers have no obligation to do that, but purely from an engineering perspective it's an approach worth considering.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Putty maintainer on his attitude towards security and ope... by pjc50 on Monday December 13, 2021 @03:46AM (#29537884)
You then hit the two problems that everyone with a plugin API hits:

- you can't rearchitecture your software beyond a certain amount without breaking the plugin API

- if a plugin crashes, people will blame the host, no matter how you attempt to deflect this

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Putty maintainer on his attitude towards security and ope... by GoblinSlayer on Monday December 13, 2021 @04:48AM (#29538189)
That's what log4net does, and presumably log4j has a plugin api too.
[ Parent | on HN ]