"active" plugins

[Robert Brenstein]

>
>So the question is:
>
>   Do we need an "active" mode for plugins in addition to
>   the engine-supported "open" and "library" options?
>
>If the majority opinion is to keep it we should release this beta as
>final soon -- please get any bug reports in if you haven't already (the
>item about the menu references is already on this list -- thank you
>Klaus).  If not, we can remove it and get a last round of testing with a
>final release soon after.
>

I see that there is an overwhelming agreement to remove the "active" plugins.

I agree that pretending that such a plugin is a library is a usable 
workabout (but a workabout nevertheless). At least for plugins that 
we use for ourselves.

I agree that there is no extreme need for a class of "active" plugins 
right now  (nobody suggested a better label than "active" -- I agree 
it is not optimal). It might have paved a road for some new uses of 
plugin stacks (beyond using the plugin menu as simply a convinience 
launchpad for normal stacks). IMHO it gave almost the same power as 
Rev's more complicated plugins setup (and no overhead).

But alas, simplicity rules, so be it :(

Robert Brenstein