Is it really so difficult?

[bananahead]

So we now have AfterShot 2.2 and all of the plugins need to be recompiled.

My understanding of this is that the compile needs to be done six times. 32 and 64 bit for Windows, Linux and OSX. And then the plugin needs to be regression tested for each platform.

What I don't understand is why this has not been completed in the last three months. I would have thought that Corel would have done this themselves.

Do Corel not employ developers and testers that are also photographers? Do these people not use their own tools in their workflow? Do they not share our pain?


Every image that I produce will have had at least one plugin applied which currently means that ASP 2.2 is of no use to me.


I like ASP (together with PSP) and it will be with much regret that I will switch products. But I will start this process at the end of the month unless all of the plugins are available.

[Arnfinn]

So we now have AfterShot 2.2 and all of the plugins need to be recompiled.
My understanding of this is that the compile needs to be done six times. 32 and 64 bit for Windows, Linux and OSX. And then the plugin needs to be regression tested for each platform.
What I don't understand is why this has not been completed in the last three months. I would have thought that Corel would have done this themselves.
Do Corel not employ developers and testers that are also photographers? Do these people not use their own tools in their workflow? Do they not share our pain?

Good question, Bananahead!!! Corel should by this last Qt framework upgrade for V.2.2 really have learned how important each plugin is for their core product. Everytime someone enhances something in ASP through a plugin, Corel has a better product and their product can appeal to a larger audience.

My understanding of this Qt upgrade is that it was necessary for further development of ASP, as the old Qt framework was limiting and the new one opens up to a whole set of opportunities and reuse of code. The problem has been that most plugins have been developed on a voluntary and non commercial basis. Much out of passion and necessity. The last days of Bibble and the extremely slow start of Corel/ASP has probably deteriorated some of that passion, and thus some plugins have been rendered as either discontinued or abandoned. Corel has to find a solution where those plugins can be put back into existence, either by aquisition to incorporate the functions into the core product, or by cooperating with the plugin developers in such a way that it ensures further enthusiasm in the plugin community. Passion for your own product is a key to success. Such passion tends to also influence on it's surroundings, hereunder both customers and plugin developers. The new Qt framework upgrade can be the telltale signs of a greater change and hope for the future development and life of this product. Bottom line, Corel has the key to it all...

Corel did promise a closer cooperation with their internal developers team for the plugin developers through the new closed plugin forum. Check out Alex Brazeau's post of Wed Jan 14, 2015 "Announcement for Plugin Developers"
http://forum.corel.com/EN/posting.php?m ... 6&p=300410

Private Forum for Plugin Devs
In response to other requests, we’ve resurrected a private developers forum where devs can get together to discuss and collaborate on plugin related issues. This is a practice some of you found to be extremely helpful back in the Bibble days. Many of you have expressed your desire to see more plugins make their way to the 64-bit version of AfterShot Pro and this revived forum will help devs to connect and work out issues with our internal development team in a timelier manner, so we can bring you the plugins you’ve been waiting for in 64-bit under the new Qt framework.

[afx]

What I don't understand is why this has not been completed in the last three months. I would have thought that Corel would have done this themselves.

Pretty hard to do without access to the source code....

cheers
afx

[bananahead]

What I don't understand is why this has not been completed in the last three months. I would have thought that Corel would have done this themselves.

Pretty hard to do without access to the source code....

cheers
afx

Excuses.

Just get the source code.

If there are plugin developers that have no intention of supporting their plugins (and I can understand that to a degree) then get them to supply the source code.

[Arnfinn]

Just get the source code.

If there are plugin developers that have no intention of supporting their plugins (and I can understand that to a degree) then get them to supply the source code.

The plugin developers own their own code. It would be fair if Corel made them an offer to hand over their code. Corel has a long history of purchasing software and code to make it their own. They are the ones that benefit heavily from the enhancements those plugins offer, and they should obviousely have realized by this latest upgrade how valuable they are to both the product and it's users...

[bananahead]

Yes I'm not suggesting that they should not be rewarded for their work. (although quite a lot of us have paid for plugins and if the developers have no intention of providing support then why not let others).

If I were Corel then I would have a clause in the SDK contract that said that developers must provide source for safe keeping and would lose rights under some circumstances.

[andreas]

keep in mind that some code used in the plugins has non compatible licenses to a commercial product. Currently as totally separate plugins one may stretch these licenses a bit, but that is not possible with integration by Corel.

Andreas

[afx]

Excuses.
Just get the source code.

Pretty hard to do if a developer refuses to answer any mail that mentions Corel (Sean Pucket).

If there are plugin developers that have no intention of supporting their plugins (and I can understand that to a degree) then get them to supply the source code.

Corel did that. Doesn't mean they get it.
And some developers just vanished (sadman), no way to reach them at all.

cheers
afx

[bananahead]

Excuses.
Just get the source code.

Pretty hard to do if a developer refuses to answer any mail that mentions Corel (Sean Pucket).

If there are plugin developers that have no intention of supporting their plugins (and I can understand that to a degree) then get them to supply the source code.

Corel did that. Doesn't mean they get it.
And some developers just vanished (sadman), no way to reach them at all.

cheers
afx

All of this is an issue for Corel They have a product that depends heavily on third party code. They should have realised this when they bought Bibble and done something about it at that time.

[skrimaging]

I am reading this great thread andI agree with everything and feel that at this point, Corel needs to start developing their ASP 2 plugins in-house (it's their software so they should know how to code for it)...

Why do they rely on volunteer developers that can vanish into thin air without notice... Just get some of your Corel devs to make the plugins.. that way, no more dependance..

This is causing customers losing hope in the plugin support.