cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: JS Symbols
Date Thu, 07 Feb 2013 22:00:52 GMT
I agree with window.plugins for everything that is not a polyfill.


On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:

> Agree with everything Jesse said. cordova.plugins could be considered
> "safe", but not required. It's just JavaScript!
>
> On 2/6/13 6:27 PM, "Jesse" <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> 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