# Plugin loading

**URL:** <https://discourse.kitware.com/t/plugin-loading/92>\
**Category:** Software Process\
**Created:** [April 19, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://discourse.kitware.com/t/plugin-loading/92 "2018-04-19T21:39:21Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![dcthomp](https://discourse.kitware.com/user_avatar/discourse.kitware.com/dcthomp/32/10_2.png) [@dcthomp](https://discourse.kitware.com/u/dcthomp)\
**Post date:** [April 19, 2018, 9:39pm UTC](https://discourse.kitware.com/t/plugin-loading/92/1 "2018-04-19T21:39:23Z")

</div>

@tj.corona How do you feel about a test that dlopens/closes/opens/closes plugin libraries to verify that the crazy ParaView library thing doesn’t cause problems down the road?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![tj.corona](https://discourse.kitware.com/user_avatar/discourse.kitware.com/tj.corona/32/35_2.png) [@tj.corona](https://discourse.kitware.com/u/tj.corona)\
**Post date:** [April 23, 2018, 1:28pm UTC](https://discourse.kitware.com/t/plugin-loading/92/2 "2018-04-23T13:28:07Z")

</div>

It could be helpful, but I think it would be better as a ModelBuilder test (and using ParaView’s library loading routines, not our own). The issues we have encountered thus far would not be caught by a test like this, since they require double registration followed by instantiation of a managed resource described in that library.