11 comments

Add a comment…

Sign in

prestine

Your email address

Check!

invalid email

(thinking…)

Reset

or sign in with

• 
• 

UserVoice password

Forgot password?

Create a password

Your name

I agree to the terms of service

Signed in as (Sign out)

Close

Close

Post comment Submitting...

• Mitch Mead commented  ·  September 13, 2011 9:19 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I don't see why this isn't implemented, and yes I have read the admin posts below. I don't see how this causes "headaches" for "no gain". You gain plenty with this, such as 'real' plugins. What uTorrent has now, "apps", is beyond useless in my opinion. I don't see a purpose for it at all. Whereas with real plugins we could have skins for uTorrent (I mean completely changing the interface), we would already have support for any protocol a developer decided to make, and much more. Overall I believe a program with a plugin system like this is better than without it. With a plugin system and some good developers (me included), we wouldn't even need an idea bank for most cases as people could add their own features that they wanted. For security you could make them release the source for anyone to compile.

• Anonymous commented  ·  May 8, 2011 7:45 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  Make a simple or lite version who support plugins. If we want chat we load chat module (either dll or/and some script interpreter language like Greasemonkey, iMacros etc.). You can also make the engine able to support plugins like anomos or any other privacy sceme. Microsoft had a protocol (i think is PPTP) who distribute even processor time and DNS queries. If we share the network with μTorrent and Adobe flash player, why we can't share cpu time by some percentage like we do with bandwith with μTorrent if we want? In the next years I like to see μTorrent to become a general puprose feed engine with CUDA, distributed file storage, search within clients like DC++ all with plugins. Even bittorrent can be a single (but essential) plugins.

• Adam commented  ·  March 26, 2011 1:07 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  It would be great to get rid of the Apps for starters. It doesn't really add any good extra functionality to the client, actually it's more of a burdon. Support for DLL plugins would rock!

• Quinn commented  ·  January 20, 2011 3:34 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I would rather see a layer added to make uTorrent extensible. But I don't know if it would end up being worth it.

• niculaie commented  ·  September 29, 2010 3:50 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  i would think about a plugin to chat with other seeders/leeches using utorent. maybe you want to ask them to seed 5 more min or something, but to be no posibility to chat with many at times so no spam

• someone commented  ·  August 18, 2010 4:18 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  A script (for example python) based plugin system might be a choice as well though likely a lot of work to implement...
  Pros:
  -Doesn't produce the Problems mentioned by arvid
  -Plugins are always crossplatform
  -Plugins can run in a very limited sandbox and so aren't able to break the system
  ...

• Eric commented  ·  August 18, 2010 11:49 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  just like other projects also succeed,they will be some ways to sort once this is implemented,atlest we can hope for it

• AdminFiron (Admin, µTorrent) commented  ·  August 17, 2010 5:32 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  I don't really think it's a good idea. It will cause headaches for users and developers alike for not a lot of gain.

• Adminarvid (Admin, µTorrent) commented  ·  August 16, 2010 4:03 p.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The main obstacle for this is that we use a very specific version of the windows runtime, and very specific compiler settings (which changes the ABI). This makes it very complicated for most developers to write plugins that match our ABI and work correctly. This is something that surprisingly many developers have problems with.

  Other issues include the fact that our crash dump server would get flooded by (more) 3rd party crashes and we would have to spend even more time investigating them. This is something that is very time consuming per bug fix. It's bad enough with 3rd party dll hooks that cause crashes.

• Eric commented  ·  August 11, 2010 11:33 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  it would be great if users can add their own coded plugins ,and maybe share them ..

• blacke4dawn commented  ·  July 30, 2010 8:13 a.m.  ·  Flag as inappropriateFlag as inappropriate  ·  Delete

  The "problem" with native code DLLs compared to an interpreted language is that the DLLs have to be compiled for each OS the client is running on (or at least those OSs the plugin dev wants to support) in addition to possible coding differences.

  But honestly, what do you win by using native code over interpreted one when it comes to plugins?