>Finally, a little survey: How do you guys think about distributing a 'fat'
>VM - that is a VM that has all the plugins builtin so that no extra plugin
>DLLs are needed?! It would reduce the chance of accidentally using an
>outdated plugin and possibly make redistribution a bit easier. Do you care?!
>If so, let me know. I'm your (not so) humble servant ;-)

I've always been of the view that plugins should be placed in a 
blessed folder, as is done with most other pluggable applications. 
Perhaps one named "Plugins"?

While a single, fat, application would reduce the chance of 
accidentally using an outdated plugin, it likewise reduces the chance 
of updating the interpreter by seperately compiling a new replacement 
plugin, or of permitting a user to delete those plugins they may not 
desire.

Since these features are among the primary purposes of plugins, I'd 
vote against fat binaries, provided that there is some useful place 
to put plugins other than the application directory.
-- 
Andrew C. Greenberg		acg at netwolves.com
V.P. Eng., R&D, 		813.885.2779 (office)
Netwolves Corporation		813.885.2380 (facsimile)
www.netwolves.com