Re: Extended Winamp and others with no recent author presence: emergency Python 3 compatibility releases to go out this week, community maintenance
If you are talking about a legacy mode, either nvda needs to be able to run legacy addons however without any new features or a legacy nvda version for the addons.toggle quoted messageShow quoted text
Bar those like win10 apps and a few others, the last xp version 2017.3 could be used as a legacy version if version is what you want.
What would be the issue of including legacy functions in new nvda with the stipulation, that while legacy addons will be able to run for what they were designed for that they could be limited.
I see no issue with legacy application supports like the jgt or other program spaciffic addons like teamtalk though it would be nice if this was updated.
Now saying that, there would have to be a few limits.
1. no global plugins at all.
No keyboard shortcuts that are extra, in short nothing at all that could conflict with nvda's shortcuts it may use for things.
It would have to primarily be for access.
It would be nice if things like jgt were modified, but also interactive fiction interpriters.
Saying that, that module, the ifinterpriters has been about for ages and its been stable.
I do wander what the problem of including this support in nvda itself could be done.
Also any addon which you know is unlikely to need to be changed should be conciddered for core use.
Most game runners probably will not change that much if ever.
As long as teamtalk has classic mode and it doesn't seem to be changing any time soon, I see no reason teamtalk couldn't be native.
The only reason an addon shouldn't be included for an application is if you know that app may become depricated or change.
Winamp may change at some point for example.
Note, I am not asking huge things like globals here, or synths, just application supports mainly.
It may be a no go, still for things which have remained constant for a long time maybe its about time we at least look at it.
Of course if we still do, we need to find the status of application x what it all does and weather it can be done.
Saying that, and while I fully understand we need compatability for some things, maybe we should take a slightly lesser look at it with programs which only support a single app or group of apps or translations for a language for a certain group of apps like jgt does.
In that situation as long as none of these addons effect system functions which is what we are trying to protect I'd be happy for application addons to not need as rigerous compatability if all they do is support a spaciffic app or groups of apps or something like it.
I know I have tried this a couple times and recieved arguments against and fair enough.
However this close to the release though late in the peace I am going to try again.
Am I on the right track or do we need something different.
The only thing if it is just libraries, legacy libraries could be used for legacy stuff, but when you run a legacy addon be told that while it will probably work for what it is designed for, it won't be updated or supported bar standard support.
Either solution is not without its risks, but I think we need to address this sooner or later or at least think about what we do.
This is my thought right now, but maybe others have ideas.
The other 2 options would be running old nvda for some stuff and new nvda for other things like running a vm with xp in it for xp things but for general use it may be clunky as hell.
You could have some emulator for classic apps and older addons to.
The only solution I can see right now would be that you made a version of nvda 2019.2.1 maybe have a version that never updates.
Now sadly there would be a few issues.
1. for those addons that had been updated to window over 1909 or some other things, especially with converted addons you couldn't run converted addons.
So no addon updates to anything classic, etc and no use of modern addons in the older version.
Eventually as addons went over this version could be retired or simply left, however its a bit clunky to so well there you go.
On 26/11/2019 8:15 pm, Luke Davis wrote:
The last time we had this conversation (August?) I remember that I and others thought we should have a legacy stable section for such add-ons. I still think so.