obsproject
Add RFC: Plugin Manager
Description
Implement a plugin manager that allows importing and disabling of plugins.
Motivation and Context
Having a plugin manager that is capable of disabling and importing plugins drastically decreases the complexity of using the plugins and opens more opportunities. More in the RFC.
View RFC
The file should be named with 0003, not 0004.
A big problem with the way plugins are loaded now, is that if a plugin causes OBS to crash or fail to launch for whatever reason, there's no easy way to disable the plugin besides out right uninstalling it. The plugin manager should have some mechanism for disabling plugin launches if they're causing issues, and informing the user of these issues.
A big reason for having a plugin manager is not just to simply install them, but to aid in discoverability. I see future considerations mentions making it so plugins can be installed from a server, but that feels like a big part of making sure the feature is in OBS to begin with. Additionally, plugins should possibly be something front and center, rather than something in settings. File > Plugins or a button in Controls may be better at telling a user that plugins are a thing.
How would the manager organize plugins visually so it's easy to find one you've just installed? Will part of the manifest include categories/tags? Will it include some kind of search of installed plugins?
What information or structure should the manifest contain and follow? And how will things like plugin descriptions be localized when displayed to the user (such as letting the description field be able to refer to a key to load in the locale files)? Should a plugin be able to specify minimum and maximum versions of OBS it supports? Should it be able to specify a path which it can use to check for updates to the plugin, and automatically update it?
Rather than just a zip for the plugin, and needing to navigate to it with the plugin manager, maybe it could use a different file extension that OBS registers, and can install just by double clicking the plugin file? It can still be a zip file, just allowing for fewer steps to install.
The file should be named with 0003, not 0004.
Sorry, why? This is the 4th PR so I was just following in line with the others.
A big problem with the way plugins are loaded now, is that if a plugin causes OBS to crash or fail to launch for whatever reason, there's no easy way to disable the plugin besides out right uninstalling it. The plugin manager should have some mechanism for disabling plugin launches if they're causing issues, and informing the user of these issues.
This is a fantastic idea. I am thinking that as the plugins are being initialized, safely try to launch the plugin. For the plugins that fail, disable them and have a popup on startup outlining which plugins have failed.
Additionally, plugins should possibly be something front and center, rather than something in settings. File > Plugins or a button in Controls may be better at telling a user that plugins are a thing.
I previously was thinking having a tab on the menu bar but thought it would be too crowded. Figured the settings would be a good compromise between ease of access and not having too much on the user too quickly.
How would the manager organize plugins visually so it's easy to find one you've just installed? Will part of the manifest include categories/tags? Will it include some kind of search of installed plugins?
I was thinking by default having the plugins sorted alphabetically. And yes, the purpose of the manifest file would to provide metadata that could be searched. This would include categories. I will update it to make it more clear.
What information or structure should the manifest contain and follow? And how will things like plugin descriptions be localized when displayed to the user (such as letting the description field be able to refer to a key to load in the locale files)? Should a plugin be able to specify minimum and maximum versions of OBS it supports? Should it be able to specify a path which it can use to check for updates to the plugin, and automatically update it?
Personally, I thought the way NPM does manifest files could work out pretty well. It could be JSON formatted, all included locales could be included in the compressed file which are referenced inside of the manifest "locales" object. An example manifest would be:
{
"name": "Plugin Name",
"author": "Author Name",
"description": "Description that would be displayed to user",
"locale": {
"en": "file path"
},
"plugin": "file"
}
Rather than just a zip for the plugin, and needing to navigate to it with the plugin manager, maybe it could use a different file extension that OBS registers, and can install just by double clicking the plugin file? It can still be a zip file, just allowing for fewer steps to install.
This is another great idea that should be implemented
The reason for 0003 is PR #1 is 0000-window-capture-rewrite.md
The things I asked should be the kind of things made clear in the RFC itself, since that will be the reference for actually creating the manager. Part of my issue with the RFC now is lacking details, or simply implying things (like the RFC mentions checking if a plugin is disabled, but not how a plugin might be disabled).
Ok. I appreciate the criticism and I have gone back and rewritten the RFC. It is much more specific and outlines most of the core components.
Things that would be needed for a plugin manager:
- It should pull approved plugins from the OBS server that we can check and compile ourselves
- It should support auto-updating plugins from the server
- Plugins should be digitally signed by us
- Plugins should probably have stability ratings, like stable/unstable/etc so the user knows what they're getting themselves in to
- Plugins should have the ability to specify global settings or something, optionally. Probably just easier to make it Qt-based to be honest. Could do something like add settings panes to the settings dialog like we used to do with classic. Or settings in the plugin dialog or something maybe. Not sure.
Plugins should probably have stability ratings, like stable/unstable/etc so the user knows what they're getting themselves in to
Can you go more into detail about this? Are you referring to update channels, like "beta"/"edge"/"stable"? If a plugin has known compatibility issues or serious problems with crashing, we as the curators of the plugin list should probably just take it down rather than flag it with some sort of "problematic" tag.
I don't know. I think it would be better left to the user to decide how stable they would like their plugins. Perhaps the plugin is important enough that a crash every once in a while is worth the risk. I think having tags for the channel such as stable, beta, edge is good. Perhaps put a warning when the user adds a plugin in beta/edge about the potential stability issues
Can you go more into detail about this? Are you referring to update channels, like "beta"/"edge"/"stable"? If a plugin has known compatibility issues or serious problems with crashing, we as the curators of the plugin list should probably just take it down rather than flag it with some sort of "problematic" tag.
I suppose you've got a point. Problem is it would come down to us to test every plugin. If certain plugins we've had in the past are any indicator, sometimes we can't reasonably convince authors to provie workarounds in a timely manner. And some people will probably get upset if we outright remove their plugin, so it's probably something we have to think about. I.E. Plugin behaving badly, but if we take it away all of a sudden, users complaining.
Problem is it would come down to us to test every plugin
If we're signing every plugin, surely that implies we are testing them too? Maybe I don't quite understand what signing is supposed to buy us.
And some people will probably get upset if we outright remove their plugin
If the policy is that the plugin has to actually work to be listed in the plugin library, then they are free to feel angry as much as they are free to fix their plugin. Really, the question here is now much quality control are we going to do here as we curate the plugin list.
At the same time, though, I question how much of this is more of a policy discussion rather than a technical discussion about implementing the plugin manager to begin with. Presumably the implementation details of the plugin manager would remain the same regardless of how we choose to populate the plugin library.
What it if we create an official stable curation of plugins, and then we can allow plugin creators to either a) host their own plugin servers that users can connect to (maybe even require authentication to) or b) submit their plugins to a more community based server. I am kind of think like arch linux aur. When a plugin becomes popular enough, we add it to the main "repo" where we can more easily verify its stability and compatibility. Otherwise, there is more discretion for the user and plugin developers.
If we're signing every plugin, surely that implies we are testing them too? Maybe I don't quite understand what signing is supposed to buy us. If the policy is that the plugin has to actually work to be listed in the plugin library, then they are free to feel angry as much as they are free to fix their plugin. Really, the question here is now much quality control are we going to do here as we curate the plugin list.
Signing is just meant as a verification measure, so we can check that the download is valid. I am not sure if we can reasonably be expected to test and find every plugin's bugs, but yea, I suppose that's what I'm really implying more than anything, how do we curate and ensure that they're working properly or as expected, especially with things like race conditions which can pop up randomly.
At the same time, though, I question how much of this is more of a policy discussion rather than a technical discussion about implementing the plugin manager to begin with. Presumably the implementation details of the plugin manager would remain the same regardless of how we choose to populate the plugin library.
Well, we can't release it without a policy on that. I suppose we could implement it and merge it and then just not expose it until we had a policy though, so if you feel we should put the policy discussion aside then I don't mind that.
so we can check that the download is valid
By "valid" do you just mean, like, a checksum? Or to verify that there hasn't been some sort of MITM attack that makes a user think they are getting a legitimate plugin but are actually getting someone else's random DLL?
I suppose we could implement it and merge it and then just not expose it until we had a policy though, so if you feel we should put the policy discussion aside then I don't mind that.
I just want to be sure that the discussion here is meaningful for the RFC, which is largely a technical spec draft. I think policy discussion can inform what features we want to have for a minimum viable product, but I just want to be sure we don't get lost in the weeds.
For example, the suggestion @Programatic made about letting people specify a non-authoritative plugin repository is more complicated than it may seem on the surface, because one issue I've been struggling with is what to do about plugins that offer paid services or integrations.
Suppose a graphic design company wanted to sell OBS overlay packages, and they made a plugin that was basically an embedded browser page to their online storefront. Listing them in the official OBS plugin library is essentially advertising and visibility for that company. Is this "okay"?
It's a complicated issue. On one hand, the prospect of giving free advertising to a paid service seems...unwise? If they are extracting value from the service we are operating (the official plugin listings, and the platform on which they are consumed) then it doesn't seem unreasonable for the project to charge some listing fee, or request revenue share from sales (conventionally, a standard cut for this sort of "in-app purchase" would be 30%). And more practically speaking, it would be unwise of those companies to build a business on a platform with which they have no SLA, or that may disappear at any moment due to insufficient funding. If those companies are getting value from the platform, it's in their best interest to do everything they can to ensure the platform can continue to exist.
On the other hand, there's "the spirit of open source" that demands that people be able to do whatever they want with the software, and if you didn't want people making money with it then you shouldn't have given it away for free. Sure, fair point, and I think the openness of OBS as a platform is one of its greatest assets for the sake of enabling novel use cases and addons to arise from the community. I think the absolute wrong response would be to create a hard plugin whitelist, and block all plugins that aren't on the whitelist from loading. And if we don't have a whitelist, that means that even if we did have a policy in place that limited the presence of plugins for paid services in the plugin library, those companies would still be able to distribute "side-loaded" plugin installers to get the plugin into OBS anyway and skip any revenue sharing requirement Alternatively, if we allowed users to add third-party plugin repositories, or otherwise had an "unfiltered" community repository, it would be easy enough for a company to instruct users how to install their plugins from a non-standard repository. The value proposition of the main plugin library, then, is limited to simple exposure, and if it's easy enough to get around that hurdle, then there may be no sufficient motivation for companies to want to pay to be listed in the plugin library in the first place.
Right now, my least-bad solution to this problem would be to incentivize corporate sponsorships by associating plugin publisher profiles with Open Collective accounts. This would allow us to show a little badge or something next to the publisher's name on each of their plugin listings to indicate to users that the publisher supports OBS development, and the absence of such a badge would tell users that the company is freeloading. It's not a great solution, because a) I think user convenience will outweigh a mild amount of social shaming, depending on the size of the company, and b) a $250/mo bronze sponsorship is a drop in the bucket compared to the sales numbers that many of these companies put up (which may necessitate showing different badge degrees/sizes based on sponsorship level).
And on top of all this, how would the implementer of this feature feel if they put a bunch of unpaid labor into a feature that ended up making a bunch of money for other companies and possibly also the OBS Project? (To that effect, I think it's entirely reasonable to put a sizable bounty on this feature when the spec is completed.)
I don't know what the right solution to this problem is yet. But all that is to say that yes, policy discussion can inform feature sets, so I suppose you're right that it's fair to discuss them now.
By "valid" do you just mean, like, a checksum? Or to verify that there hasn't been some sort of MITM attack that makes a user think they are getting a legitimate plugin but are actually getting someone else's random DLL?
I would imagine the digital signature would use something like asymmetric key signing in order to verify that there was no corruption as well as preventing of any MITM attacks.
Also, I would imagine that allowing 3rd plugin servers, once implemented, would decrease the complexity for paid plugins and services. By allowing 3rd party authenticated servers, it allows individuals to create their own payed plugins, without having to show any sponsorship whatsoever.
Whether or not there should be monetized plugins, is a different story. I have personally never been a fan of paid content. However, if the plugin significantly increases quality of life for users, I think there could definitely be a case for it. An example could be a plugin that integrates a lot of their services with OBS automatically and seamlessly which should be kept off of official listings.
Suppose a graphic design company wanted to sell OBS overlay packages, and they made a plugin that was basically an embedded browser page to their online storefront. Listing them in the official OBS plugin library is essentially advertising and visibility for that company. Is this "okay"?
Perhaps if they are an official sponsor of OBS, there could be a dedicated section of plugins that they can reserve a spot to. This way, OBS can control the quality of content officially while also providing more value for the users.
I understand the issue with monetization, but it seems like OBS has already been caught inside of the crossfire since many people rely on these streaming tools in order to support themselves. As a result, companies are going to inherently want to pour money into it because there is a big opportunity to make money.
I did not notice it mentioned so here are few suggestions:
Plugin manifest should contain info with what version of OBS Studio plugin works. I guess that should be two information> minimum and maximum version. That would assure that plugin is not loaded into OBS version it cannot work with. Mostly targeted on old and obsolete plugins. This may especially be helpful when user updates OBS and if he has some plugin that is not compatible with the newest OBS that plugin would not be loaded.
There should be indication if plugin is free, or semi free (limited, asking of purchasing more features, relaying on some external commercial online service or software, or fully commercial (must be purchased). This all should be informative and mandatory for user to see before downloading, so he can decide if he wants to install plugin or not.
There may be several Repositories of OBS plugins - one official and others set as per wish or need. Official repository should be mandatory but user could be able to add more repositories in configuration. That may solve dilemma about listing commercial plugins. It could be simple: official OBS repository would show only open source plugins. For other kind of plugins, manufacturer may set his own repository and instruct his clients to set it in OBS to be able to get plugins.
I am not sure if there is actual case but maybe it would be good to allow for plugin dependency - that one plugin requires some other plugin to be already installed. That should be set on plugin version level.
It should be possible to have multiple versions of a plugin. For example: old version of plugin that works with old version of OBS Studio and new version that works with latest OBS, or stable version, then alpha, beta.. so that user is able to choose which one to install. this is a must if automatic updating is implemented.
