Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates
 64.18.1.37 as permitted sender)
From: Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Date: Thu, 21 Mar 2013 16:10:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Platform-level command line scripts
Thread-Topic: Platform-level command line scripts
Thread-Index: Ac4miVKmguQDdDldT0+HvrCCkhXDbw==
Message-ID: <CD70E164.1AC60%fil@adobe.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADVgkyN=DHvLETMSg3W+NToFM7y7oiohCfiKxfsKWEsOi6+Wnw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.2.130206
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0

Who's four-command proposal is it? Anis' or Andrew's?

On 3/21/13 3:14 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b@brian.io> wrote:

>I think we can have our cake and eat it too. We should have four high
>level commands. Those commands can shell to lower level discreetly
>testable commands. The end user will never know the difference. The
>developers win the tight abstraction we seek.
>
>Make sense?
>
>On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Michael Brooks
>><michael@michaelbrooks.ca>wrote:
>>
>>> +1 Fil's outlined design.
>>>
>>> I'm still not convinced of what Anis and Andrew are in favour of.
>>>Having
>>> each script do more will make it more difficult for common results
>>>across
>>> all platforms.
>>>
>>> I really like Anis's suggestion of just four scripts. What's the
>>>motivation
>>> > for having many scripts? Having fewer will dramatically reduce copy &
>>> paste
>>> > bugs. It will also aid discoverability (since you'll get --help
>>>instead
>>> of
>>> > just "ls" and infer from the name what they do).
>>>
>>>
>>> The motivation for having many scripts is that there is a single entry
>>> point for a single action. Each action is discrete. Either a platform
>>> supports `deploy-emulator` or doesn't. If we have a single `run`
>>> entry-point, it becomes confusing whether a platform supports all
>>> requirements of the `run` action.
>>>
>>> I feel the code repetition is also a weak argument. We are defining
>>> entry-point scripts. You can refactor out the common routines (e.g.
>>>build)
>>> into a helper script that can be invoked by multiple scripts. As far
>>>as I
>>> know, this is possible in bash, batch, and Windows Script Hosting.
>>>
>>
>> I guess this topic will need a vote to follow the Apache Way. We've been
>> talking about/implementing/changing these scripts for a long time and we
>> can't seem to come to a complete agreement.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ripple should be a separate option and not a separate command in my
>>> > opinion. To simplify things and if everyone agrees we can ignore the
>>> `run`
>>> > command flow above and launch ripple by default and ask users to
>>>specify
>>> > options if they want to deploy and run to a particular
>>>device/emulator.
>>>
>>>
>>> I feel Ripple has no place in the platform-specific scripts. I love
>>>Ripple,
>>> but Ripple belongs is a higher-level tool such as Cordova CLI. The
>>> platform-specific scripts are meant to deal with platform-specific
>>> functions.
>>>
>>
>> I don't have a strong opinion on this. So I could agree with you that
>>this
>> Ripple could be a higher-level tool.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Michael
>>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.mapes@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>> > I liked the idea you mentioned earlier with having one wrapper
>>>script,
>>> > that way there is one entry point for the given commands for the
>>>needed
>>> > functionality. Then it doesn't matter what underlying scripts
>>>actually do
>>> > the work.
>>> >
>>> > Then our only focus would be on the commands and not so much the
>>>name of
>>> > the scripts.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > > I really like Anis's suggestion of just four scripts. What's the
>>> > motivation
>>> > > for having many scripts? Having fewer will dramatically reduce
>>>copy &
>>> > paste
>>> > > bugs. It will also aid discoverability (since you'll get --help
>>>instead
>>> > of
>>> > > just "ls" and infer from the name what they do).
>>> > >
>>> > >
>>> > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>>> > >
>>> > > > Ya ya ya we're all on agreement on this specific issue. The
>>> underlying
>>> > > > platform scripts can be used regardless of whether you're using
>>> > > > cordova-cli or not.
>>> > > >
>>> > > > On 3/20/13 3:51 PM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> > > >
>>> > > > >On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Benn Mapes
>>><benn.mapes@gmail.com>
>>> > > wrote:
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >> I know that sounds
>>> > > > >> like a lot
>>> > > > >> of scripts but we're building them for the cordova-cli to use,
>>>  so i
>>> > > > >>like
>>> > > > >> the idea of breaking
>>> > > > >>  them out so each script does a *very specific* task with as
>>> > > > >>little-to-no
>>> > > > >>
>>> > > > >
>>> > > > >No we're not. cordova-cli is a cool tool that people can use
>>>but it
>>> > > should
>>> > > > >not be the only way of building Cordova apps in my opinion.
>>> > > >
>>> > > >
>>> > >
>>> >
>>>