* Potential Probate Plugin

[Gary_G]

For example, a Will can contain information about brothers, sisters, children, parents, aunts, uncles, etc. of the deceased. It can tell you the names of all these people, their occupations, where they lived, the names of their spouses. And then it would be difficult to have any auto-text transcriptions, other than a generic overview. So I'd expect really that it would just be a expandable list of people mentioned with places to record their occupations, residence, etc. together with information about the deceased person, when they died and so on (with fields similar to those mentioned elsewhere in this thread).

Nick's correct about probate calendar data being somewhat variable. I have several entries that cross-reference to other entries in the same volume. Given the reason for the cross-reference, these would be very challenging to capture in a meaningful way. So; I'm looking forward to how such information is captured by others.

[NickWalker]

I've not really had much experience with calendar entries. Most of the wills I've used have been full original hand-written ones.

[ChrisRead]

I added a GRO Index Entries plugin last year, but have never had any feedback from that, so I am sceptical of the benefit of adding this to the store.

I just added a GRO Source Reference plugin to the store, even though there are already a couple of ones in there. I did it because I wanted a go at a plugin out of interest, and I wanted to add some features that I wanted and a smarter UI that knew about changes in the GRO Indexes. My personal feeling is that even if no one else actually uses it, it may still provide some code samples around IUP that does not use the ubiquitous GetParams().
I'm trying to decide if I want to have a go at a Probate plugin that at least works the way I do, to make my data entry easier.

[NickWalker]

Just to mention that I am actively working on the two source types for Ancestral Sources: gravestones (MIs) and probate and making good progress now (particularly gravestones) but it will be much later in the year before these are likely to appear I think.

[Normie]

I just added a GRO Source Reference plugin to the store, even though there are already a couple of ones in there. I did it because I wanted a go at a plugin out of interest, and I wanted to add some features that I wanted and a smarter UI that knew about changes in the GRO Indexes. My personal feeling is that even if no one else actually uses it, it may still provide some code samples around IUP that does not use the ubiquitous GetParams().
I'm trying to decide if I want to have a go at a Probate plugin that at least works the way I do, to make my data entry easier.

Isn't there a danger that the plugin store gets heavily populated with prototype plugins. I accept that by preventing you posting plugins in threads any more, this is an easy way to provide code samples. I believe that plugins in the store need to be supported, less so when they were put forward as plugins for interest only.

As my information has largely been collected now, I have less need to spend time on data entry plugins. I have lately spent much more time on developing reports.

As Ancestral Sources is fully supported, that is an essential vehicle to add source types to. I have created plugins to complement/simplify some of the data entry functions of Ancestral Sources.

[tatewise]

You can post plugins in forums but now must use shared links to cloud storage such as OneDrive or Google Drive.
IMO unsupported prototype plugins should not be published in the Plugin Store.

[Mark1834]

I was about to make the same comment. I think it is perfectly reasonable to make speculative and/or prototype plugins available via a FHUG link.

After a reasonable time (6-12 months max?), it would be better to upload a finished version to the store, provided that the author is prepared to support it.

KB code snippets is probably the correct home for teaching or illustration code, rather than the store, which could get very cluttered.

[ChrisRead]

I put mine in the store because it was complete as far as my intent was concerned. It has some features that others of the same type do not have, and so expands on existing GRO plug-ins rather than simply duplicating. If someone were to use it and find an issue then I would investigate, duplicate and resolve.

The fact I created it out of interest and to learn something new, does not make it is a prototype if that was being implied, as I said it is complete and functional, and I have no plans nor need to develop it further.

Also, given the surprisingly short list of All Plugins, I don't think there's much danger of the store getting cluttered just yet, but as was said, it's not the right place for code snippets, just fully formed plug-ins.

[Normie]

Chris

Having read you thread on GRO Source Reference I appreciate that you had looked for comments and posted a supported completed version for general use.

I accept the policy for prototyping plugins, even though I not convinced having links are better that posting plugin sources directly. I am personally always cautious about clicking links as you cannot always be sure what is on the end.

As to the Probate plugin, I would support you developing one as I have no plans to put a version in the store at present. I think it would complement rather than compete with Ancestral Sources. A plugin may not cater for all scenarios, as Nick tries to do with Ancestral Source, but can be much easier to use. It also has the advantage that it works on the Gedcom file directly in FH rather than on externally changing the Gedcom file outside of FH.

Norman

[tatewise]

I accept the policy for prototyping plugins, even though I not convinced having links are better that posting plugin sources directly. I am personally always cautious about clicking links as you cannot always be sure what is on the end.

The policy of banning plugin attachments to forums is for the same reason as the uncertainty of the contents.
The forum website admins do not want to deal with that problem with files held in the forum website.
See Changes to the arrangements for making plugins available in the forums (22698) and Removal of support for .zip and other archive attachments (22697).

[Normie]

I am aware of the policy and reasons behind it. I have offered plugins in this forum on several occasions in the past.

I have also developed a number of plugins for personal use, but would be reluctant to progress them further through this forum because of the need to provide links; that is a personal choice.

[ColeValleyGirl]

Normie, no problem with your personal choice. If you're happy that your plugins are robust, there's always the plugin store.