cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Creating repos for core plugins
Date Wed, 06 Feb 2013 18:22:19 GMT
Totally makes sense to separate them.

File is spec-based, FileTransfer is not.

On 2/6/13 10:16 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

>I thought FileTransfer was a part of File. Maybe it makes sense to
>separate
>them though?
>
>
>On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Becky Gibson
><gibson.becky@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Yes, I shouldn't have confused the issue about audio and media!  I
>>guess I
>> just get annoyed when I go to mobile spec and it is labelled as "audio"
>>:-)
>>  We can leave it as cordova-plugin-media so it matches the JS api name.
>>  Although, I think we are creating the same type of confusion if we
>>rename
>> capture to media-capture but I don't have a strong opinion on that.
>>Plus,
>> I see we are doing that for acceleration and compass as well.  I guess
>>now
>> is as good a time as any to match the W3C names!
>>
>>  Also, where is FileTransfer?
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Great! I like the spec-based names. I think I have the opposite
>>thought
>> as
>> > Becky. Our current media plugin doesn't follow the WebAudio spec at
>>all.
>> > How about we call it cordova-media for now since that's what it's
>>called
>> in
>> > our docs, and then if we ever implement WebAudio, then we'll have the
>> name
>> > available for that. Maybe we should even put it the spec-less category
>> > (unless there's some older spec that it was based off of?)
>> >
>> >
>> > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Just kicked up a quick wiki page to help vett this. I'm thinking we
>> > > try to stay as close to the spec names as possible.
>> > >
>> > > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/Core%20Plugin%20Name%20Proposal
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Becky Gibson
>><gibson.becky@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > > My only comment would be about media.  Currently it just supports
>> audio
>> > > so
>> > > > perhaps codova-plugin-audio makes more sense and we can leave
>>media
>> > open
>> > > > for the rewrite.  Although, I do realize the api is labelled
>>"media"
>> so
>> > > > perhaps it would be too confusing to change the repo name.  Just a
>> > > > thought.....
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve
>><agrieve@chromium.org>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > >> Before I go ahead with this, let's agree upon the repo names /
>>which
>> > > >> plugins to include.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Here's the proposed list:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Repos to create:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-accelerometer
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-battery
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-camera
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-capture
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-compass
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-contacts
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-device
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-file
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-geolocation
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-globalization
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-logger
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-media
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-networkstatus
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-notification
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-splashscreen
>> > > >> cordova-plugin-inappbrowser
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Note that I have device and network status in this list. Plugins
>> that
>> > > delay
>> > > >> ondeviceready just add themselves to
>> channel.deviceReadyChannelsArray.
>> > > >>
>> > > >> Plugins *not* getting their own Repo:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> blackberry/plugin/java/app
>> > > >> android/plugin/android/app
>> > > >> android/plugin/android/storage
>> > > >> errgen/plugin/errgen
>> > > >> ios/plugin/ios/console (seems like this should be merged into
the
>> > logger
>> > > >> plugin)
>> > > >> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/DOMStorage
>> > > >> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/XHRPatch
>> > > >> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/console
>> > > >> iOS's CDVLocalStorage.m
>> > > >>
>> > > >>
>> > > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andrew Grieve
>><agrieve@chromium.org
>> >
>> > > >> wrote:
>> > > >>
>> > > >> > Great! Sounds like an agreement :). I'll file an INFRA to
get
>>them
>> > > >> created.
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >> +1 on separate repos. It's the sane choice.
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jesse
>><purplecabbage@gmail.com>
>> > > wrote:
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >> > +1, I agree on the separate repositories.
>> > > >> >> > I still contend that nothing should need to be 'built'
and
>> there
>> > > >> should
>> > > >> >> be
>> > > >> >> > NO dependencies on the plugins from cordova-js,
( aside from
>> > > >> device.js +
>> > > >> >> > network.js which are both required pre device ready,
and I
>> think
>> > > >> should
>> > > >> >> > remain in the cordova-js repo )
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Anis KADRI <
>> anis.kadri@gmail.com
>> > >
>> > > >> >> wrote:
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > > +1 for separate repositories. Should take a
bit longer
>>than
>> > > normal
>> > > >> to
>> > > >> >> > > package a release but not too long especially
if the repos
>> are
>> > > >> pulled
>> > > >> >> > from
>> > > >> >> > > a local source (ie no network overhead).
>> > > >> >> > > I'd be ok to ship a set of default plugins
and give the
>> ability
>> > > for
>> > > >> >> > people
>> > > >> >> > > to build their 'own' Cordova.
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian LeRoux
<b@brian.io>
>> > wrote:
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> > > > I'm in favor of discreet plugin repos.
It shouldn't
>>effect
>> a
>> > > >> release
>> > > >> >> > > > if we automate install/remove and add
to the Coho
>>tool...
>> > > though
>> > > >> >> > > > perhaps this is a naive assumption.
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Andrew
Grieve <
>> > > >> agrieve@chromium.org
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > > > wrote:
>> > > >> >> > > > > Thought it'd be worth having a discussion
around
>>whether
>> we
>> > > >> want a
>> > > >> >> > > > separate
>> > > >> >> > > > > repo for each core plugin or not.
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > As far as I can see, we can either
have all core
>>plugins
>> in
>> > > one
>> > > >> >> repo,
>> > > >> >> > > or
>> > > >> >> > > > > have each in it's own and call them:
>> > > >> >> > > > > cordova-plugin-file
>> > > >> >> > > > > cordova-plugin-network
>> > > >> >> > > > > cordova-plugin-media
>> > > >> >> > > > > etc...
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > I think my preference would be to
have them as their
>>own
>> > > repos
>> > > >> so
>> > > >> >> > that
>> > > >> >> > > it
>> > > >> >> > > > > will be easier to add/remove lists
of plugins to the
>> "which
>> > > ones
>> > > >> >> are
>> > > >> >> > > > core"
>> > > >> >> > > > > list. It will also let us version
them separately (if
>>we
>> > > want to
>> > > >> >> do
>> > > >> >> > > > this).
>> > > >> >> > > > >
>> > > >> >> > > > > The downside is that it may take
longer to perform a
>> > release?
>> > > >> >> Would
>> > > >> >> > we
>> > > >> >> > > > even
>> > > >> >> > > > > bundle the plugins with releases
anyways though?
>> > > >> >> > > >
>> > > >> >> > >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >> > --
>> > > >> >> > @purplecabbage
>> > > >> >> > risingj.com
>> > > >> >> >
>> > > >> >>
>> > > >> >
>> > > >> >
>> > > >>
>> > >
>> >
>>


Mime
View raw message