@tomot said:
I think the common courtesy would have been to respond to my inquiry directly.
Had there been no other responses to your inquiry, then yes, I would have responded to you directly. However, given the potential for hundreds of other users to see this thread at a later date, I chose to respond in a way I thought would benefit the greater good, by asserting my statements alongside a potentially confusing answer to your question that came from another user. No disrespect was intended.
@unknownuser said:
Do you not think it would be appropriate to include a statement in the API that I can direct customers to where SU 2014 users, on Apple iMac's should expect to find the plugins folder?
That's a fantastic idea. Luckily several other people have invested significant time and resources in such documentation. Here's just one such example from the loading instructions on our developer site.
@unknownuser said:
Customer is upset by scripts are not SU 2014 compliant.
Customer needs to be patient and understand that software development takes some time and effort, especially when it comes to adapting existing software to work with a new product. While significant effort was expended to inform the most prolific plugin developers of the impending changes and involve them in an early "alpha" test of the Ruby 2.0 interface well before we launched 2014, given the vast number of plugins that exist in the world, it was not possible for us to involve every single plugin author. Therefore, a great many people such as you are in the position of needing to update their plugins now in response to our most recent release.
The only comfort I can offer is that this action-reaction, or release-update cycle is not at all unique to SketchUp. It is a reality that exists throughout the entire software development ecosystem, for plugin developers, web designers, hardware manufacturers, etc.
I would tell your customers that if using your plugin is an absolutely essential part of their process (one which they can't work around in any other way, such as exporting the file to 2013 format and using your plugin there), then they need to carefully evaluate that as part of their migration strategy. They must then make sure they have either a replacement solution or a reasonable workaround in place before upgrading. Otherwise it's best to just hold off upgrading SketchUp until their dependencies are completely sorted.
@unknownuser said:
He's telling me my scripts should all be in .RBZ format and should be installable in the Extension menu.
There are various ways to handle making your scripts as easy as possible for your users to find and install, but I would recommend that you adapt your plugins to the standards revealed to the developer community when we launched the SketchUp Extension Warehouse almost a year ago, and do what's necessary to get them published there. It's free and pretty straightforward to do, in addition to being a great way to make your plugins easier to discover and more readily available to the SketchUp-using public. Is that the only way to do it? No, but it is the officially supported method.
@unknownuser said:
You guys are creating a nightmare, not a solution. Solutions require critical thinking
You'll forgive me if I don't share your opinion on this. From as early as 2008 (against difficult opposition by our Google overlords), I was an advocate for the creation of the extension warehouse, so I can't begin to tell you how excited I was when it became a reality last year. In fact, I think we've done a phenomenal job with the extension warehouse and its associated developer documentation.
@unknownuser said:
Unfortunately you can't buy critical thinking, it only develops after one has been on the planet for a very long time.
I fail to see how levying such character judgments is expected to motivate me or my colleagues toward further action. I'd prefer we steer clear of such unproductive endeavors.