cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JS Symbols
Date Thu, 07 Feb 2013 02:27:45 GMT
> I would prefer cordova.plugins instead of directly on cordova.
+1

I agree, and like having core plugins live under cordova.plugins.*, but I
don't think this should be a requirement of other plugins.

For example: com.dropbox.session.startAuthentication(this);
makes sense to me

In the end, anyone can come along and make their own aliases anyway ...
it's only js

var dBox = com.dropbox;

PS: if devs are 'discovering' plugins in web inspector, then they already
have installed them in their app ... ? And this assumes that web-inspector
is available on the platform in question.


On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:

> I agree with Michal that hanging things off the cordova object can get
> pretty unmanageable after a while, and having it namespaced under
> cordova.plugins or something similar would be better.
>
> InAppBrowser is a weird one since window.open will work in browsers, but
> not everything it supports is supported in browsers (addEventListener, etc)
>
>
> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > I like the proposal, and do think our extensions should be namespaced.
> >  However, your one example of InAppBrowser is debatable if it is a
> polyfill
> > or extension, and has good arguments for either side.  So, perhaps we can
> > leave that example (or any other specific plugin) aside, and focus on the
> > overall proposal.
> >
> > I would prefer cordova.plugins instead of directly on cordova.
> >
> > I also think it would be nice for devs to discover cordova extensions in
> > web inspector by just typing cordova.plugins. and see whats available.
> >
> > -Michal
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@google.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > > Some of our APIs are meant to be polyfills, and some of them are not.
> > >
> > > It's great to expose the polyfill-type ones using the standards-based
> > > symbols. E.g. FileEntry, requestFileSystem.
> > >
> > > For the custom ones though, I think it's important for devs to realize
> > that
> > > the APIs they are using are custom to Cordova, and will never work in
> > other
> > > browsers.
> > >
> > > Examples:
> > > Camera: window.Camera
> > > InAppBrowser: window.open()
> > > globalization: navigator.globalization
> > >
> > > There's been some talk about deprecating the window.plugins namespace.
> > But
> > > why? I think it would be clearer if these apis were:
> > > Camera: plugins.camera
> > > InAppBrowser: plugins.inappbrowser.open
> > > globalization: plugins.globalization
> > >
> > > This makes it much more clear that the APIs are not browser-based ones,
> > but
> > > Cordova-specific.
> > >
> > > If the rational to get rid of the plugins is to save on a global
> symbol,
> > > how about using cordova as the namespace?
> > >
> > > cordova.camera.getPicture()
> > > cordova.inappbrowser.open()
> > > corodva.globalization.getLocale()
> > >
> > > aka:
> > > cordova.$PLUGIN_NAME.exports
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > >
> >
>



-- 
@purplecabbage
risingj.com

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message