[[!template id=gitbranch branch=chrismgray/exclusive-hooks author="[[chrismgray]]"]] Sometimes plugins register a function with `hook`, but they only want the function called with the content that they know how to deal with. Normally, this means that they call `pagetype` first thing in the function, determine if they know how to deal with the content, and only do anything if they do. > So, I can't find any plugins shipped with ikiwiki that actually do that. > Scan hooks are only ever passed the content of actual wiki pages, and > so unless a scan hook cares whether a page is written in markdown or > something else, it has no reason to care what the pagetype is. (Same for > linkify.) --[[Joey]] >> My [[org-mode|todo/org_mode]] external plugin (which will never >> really make sense to include with ikiwiki I think) does this. I >> think that most plugins defining alternate wiki syntaxes would as >> well. --[[chrismgray]] This is a bit wasteful in itself, but for external plugins, it's really bad. For functions like `scan` and `linkify`, where the entire page is sent back and forth over `stdout` and `stdin`, it really slows things down. Thus, I propose that there be a new optional parameter to `hook` that tells it that the function should only be called for files whose type is the same as the id of the plugin calling `hook`. I have called this parameter `exclusive` in my branch, but this might not be the best name. [[!tag patch]] > It's an interesting idea, but it might be more useful if it was more > generalized, say, by making it a filter, where the parameter is a regexp. > > --[[KathrynAndersen]] >> Would it make more sense as a pagespec? That might be a bit more hard >> to implement, but would certainly fix the naming issue. >> >> --[[chrismgray]] >>> Considering where it would be called, a pagespec might be overkill. --[[KathrynAndersen]] >>>> Pagespecs have some overhead themselves. Probably less than shipping >>>> the page content over stdio. >>>> >>>> Rather than putting filtering in the core of ikiwiki, I can think >>>> of two options. One is to make the main plugin a perl plugin, and >>>> have it call functions that are provided by another, external plugin. >>>> This is assuming you're using the other language because something >>>> is easy to do in it, not to avoid writing perl. >>>> >>>> Or, the external plugin interface could provide a version of `hook()` >>>> that does not pass the content parameter, but saves a copy that >>>> the plugin could request with a later rpc call. Assuming that >>>> it's really the overhead of serializing the page content, that's >>>> the problem, and not just the general overhead of making rpc calls >>>> for every page.. --[[Joey]] >>>>> Since the argument to `hook` is optional, the pagespec is only >>>>> interpreted if it is given. So there is no extra overhead >>>>> (beyond an unused `if` branch) in 99% of the cases. >>>>> >>>>> Rewriting the external plugin's shim using Perl is a good idea, >>>>> and one that I wish I had thought of earlier. On the other >>>>> hand, it doesn't set a great precedent about the usability of >>>>> external plugins. --[[chrismgray]]