[RFC] Deprecate ext_processses

[cachedout]

This is a discussion issue, not an already-agreed-upon task.

Since we now have engines on the master, I'm wondering if we should continue to support ext_processes. These were added late last year, by @mgwillams if I'm not mistaken.

Do engines supercede the idea behind ext_processes and can they be removed? Or is there a case for keeping both around?

cc: @thatch45

[mgwilliams]

@cachedout I forgot I'd even committed that... I'm in favor of deprecating ext_processes.

[cachedout]

@mgwilliams I totally forgot about it too. I just happened to come across it while doing something else. :]

[drawsmcgraw]

@cachedout As a fan of ext_process, can I ask that we have documentation for engines that's on the same level as ext_process? I don't mind migrating from ext_process to engines but I'm not sure where to start.

For reference, this is the documentation on ext_process, while the best that I've found on how to get started on engines is the search results on Github, which amounts to reverse engineering.

I can look at the 'test' and other engines for reference on implementation, but the questions that come to mind for me are:

• Where do I put my engine files?
• How can I enable them?

I'm glad to help with said documentation once I have a firm grasp of how engines work.

[cachedout]

This actually came up just the other day. Thanks for the reminder!

I believe @jacobhammons is already on the case. (He can correct me if I'm wrong.)

[drawsmcgraw]

Oh nice! Is it in any particular branch? I'd love a preview.

Regardless, I welcome my new Engine overlords.

[stale]

This issue has been automatically marked as stale because it has not had recent activity. It will be closed if no further activity occurs. Thank you for your contributions.

If this issue is closed prematurely, please leave a comment and we will gladly reopen the issue.