Quantcast Let's get rid of LibStub! - Page 2 - ESOUI
Thread Tools Display Modes
05/11/19, 07:22 AM   #21
Sordrak
 
Sordrak's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 33
So is this now going to be a thing or not?

I'm currently trying to shift to the new style, but i don't think the support for this is that huge currently.

Or maybe I do not see how to use some of the libraries in this new way.

Anyone got some feedback regarding:
LibCustomMenu
LibGPS
LibMapPing
LibMapPins-1.0
LibPotionBuff

Any feedback would be appreciated.
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 09:11 AM   #22
Baertram
 
Baertram's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,166
LibPotionBuff will be changed, already got a beta version for tests here if you want to try it out:
LibPotionBuff without LibStub

And the others will follow, I'm pretty sure. So I will definately remove LibStub from my libraries. It takes some time but e.g. LibFilters needed a new version for this (3.0) and 2.0 should be replaced with 3.0 soon!
I guess you should start to modify your addons to support both ways.
Either the global variable or LibStub like this:

Lua Code:
  1. local lpb = LibPotionBuff
  2. if lpb == nil and LibStub then lpb = LibStub("LibPotionBuff") end

In your addon#s manifest ttx be sure to add LibPotionBuff to the ##DependsOn: entry:

Code:
##DependsOn: LibPotionBuff
And remove LiBStub from the DependsOn and OptionalDependsOn as this should be handled in the library's own txt file (if installed as stadnalone and NOT included in your addon zip file) on it's own via LibPotionBuff.txt -> ##DependsOn: LibStub or even not anymore for the new version.

If you have the libraries included into your addon's zip archive you should start to remove them, or be sure to support them properly so either users containing older versions of your addon WITH LibStub libraries are able to use it AND new versions without it as well (as shown above in the example).
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 10:44 AM   #23
Sordrak
 
Sordrak's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 33
I guess i just ran into this here... LibAddonMenu present in an old version and me only supporting the new one.

No idea of how i should feel supporting both versions at the moment o_O

Thanks for the info btw.
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 12:00 PM   #24
Kyoma
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by Sordrak View Post
I guess i just ran into this here... LibAddonMenu present in an old version and me only supporting the new one.

No idea of how i should feel supporting both versions at the moment o_O

Thanks for the info btw.
It should be fine if they have LAMr29 installed as a standalone
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 01:32 PM   #25
Baertram
 
Baertram's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,166
Originally Posted by Sordrak View Post
I guess i just ran into this here... LibAddonMenu present in an old version and me only supporting the new one.

No idea of how i should feel supporting both versions at the moment o_O

Thanks for the info btw.
I did it like described above.
First check if the global variable LibAddonMenu2 exists and use it for your local instance of LAM, and if not check if LibStub is loaded and load the lib via this way.
After this check if your local instance of LAM is there and if not abort your addon with an error message (e.g. use assert() function to do so).
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 02:39 PM   #26
Sordrak
 
Sordrak's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Baertram View Post
I did it like described above.
First check if the global variable LibAddonMenu2 exists and use it for your local instance of LAM, and if not check if LibStub is loaded and load the lib via this way.
After this check if your local instance of LAM is there and if not abort your addon with an error message (e.g. use assert() function to do so).
Yes and no.

I agree with the approach of moving the libraries directly to the AddOn folder and getting rid of lib directories within AddOns.

Furthermore, i agree with the approach of removing the LibStub part. That's actually why I began to change my AddOns.

Yet I didn't expect this behavior at the beginning and I don't think the benefit is really huge in the way things are currently.

What I expected was that the AddOn doesn't get loaded at all without the dependencies. The behavior should be managed directly by ZOS / ESO trough DependsOn. Yet, I find myself having to add additional code (instead of getting rid of it) to verify if there isn't a library loaded the old way.

Which actually means for me that the benefit isn't huge. If I want the AddOn to run everywhere fine, I would still have to add the library to my AddOn as otherwise it wouldn't run and I would have to handle that case. I don't see an assert / printing a message as very useful or the way I'd like it to be.

Not sure how I'll adjust my AddOn now... guess I'll see.
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 02:58 PM   #27
Baertram
 
Baertram's Avatar
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Mar 2014
Posts: 2,166
If you don't want the library to be loaded without dependency then maybe include/or not the library within your addon's folder BUT don't load it from your addon's txt file but let it have it's own librray's txt file and use the DependsOn in your addon's txt file.
This way you provide the lib and your addon should work as expected and NOT load if the lib is missing/get's removed.

Adding additional code is curently only needed for the phase where libraries might exist as version with and w/o LibStub.
My approach would be to remove LibStub completely and let addons crash so they need an update but this will break older unmaintained addons as well and thus is not the wanted behaviour (I wouldn't mind as it's easy to ask and fix them as well but some ppl here just want everything to be running smooth and fine. Remembering the wide user reactions on the library changes in the past I can understand them... Not all of the users seem to wish to get a fix but love to simply complain and rage )
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 03:04 PM   #28
Kyoma
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 86
You don't actually need the assert/debug line to see if the library isn't loaded because you are already using ##DependsOn and users need to install it seperately anyway. Even if the LAM instance that is loaded comes from an (older) addon that had it embedded (with its manifest) it still loads with LibStub through that.

I agree you'd still need this (taking LibPotionBuff as an example):
Code:
    local lpb = LibPotionBuff
    if lpb == nil and LibStub then lpb = LibStub("LibPotionBuff") end
Instead of this tho
Code:
    local lpb =  LibStub("LibPotionBuff")
But that is mainly because the user might have a LAM version installed that still used LibStub because this is kind of a transition period.
  Reply With Quote
05/11/19, 03:47 PM   #29
Rhyono
AddOn Author - Click to view addons
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 501
If you're relying on a library that hasn't switched yet: you're stuck for now, but this is just the first step in getting away from it.

In regards to LAM, if someone hasn't updated to the version of LAM that allows direct access to LAM (r28+) and they use my addons that requires that: I'm just letting it break. I'm not bothering to support old versions of LAM when there's a new version.
  Reply With Quote

ESOUI » Developer Discussions » General Authoring Discussion » Let's get rid of LibStub!

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off