cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: The plugin repos and reality
Date Mon, 08 Apr 2013 05:44:00 GMT
 Thanks Anis and Fil! If you need help, I suppose you could assign some
starter issues so I can get a feel for the codebase


On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:

> I will take a look Shaz. I'll update that in a separate thread where we
> can put more discussion into task details and separation of work.
>
> On 4/7/13 12:57 PM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >CB-2727 && CB-2719 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2719>
are
> >resolved shaz (in master not future). I will take care of CB-2717 &&
> >CB-2718
> > this week.
> >
> >
> >On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Fil,
> >> I have some issues filed for plugman: http://cl.ly/O7Th
> >> I'd like to contribute but since we have many cooks here, I don't know
> >>if I
> >> will be treading on some code that is going to change anyway. Some of
> >>them
> >> filed are critical for iOS, but not labeled with 'future'. Can you take
> >>a
> >> quick glance and see where the issues fit in the scheme of things?
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > To summarize:
> >> >
> >> > - yes plugman needs more work before we can utilize standalone
> >>plugins.
> >> >
> >> > We have several committers working on this. There are issues filed in
> >> JIRA
> >> > (mainly assigned to Braden, Tim and me). With this being the blocker
> >>to
> >> > moving to a bare bridge implementation of Cordova, anyone is free to
> >>jump
> >> > in and help there :). All of the plugman must-have features are tagged
> >> > with "future" so do a search fro that in the JIRA if you want to help
> >> out.
> >> >
> >> > - people concerned about doing too much right now
> >> >
> >> > To reiterate Brian's point, let's take it slow. Go one plugin at a
> >>time.
> >> > We have 3-4 months before the slated 3.0 release.
> >> >
> >> > - code living in two spots at once
> >> >
> >> > This one is tricky, but IMO code living in two spots isn't a massive
> >>deal
> >> > at this point. The benefits to having plugin code, until we hit 3.0,
> >>live
> >> > in two spots at once is:
> >> >
> >> >  * for 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, users of cordova will still get the standard
> >>APIs
> >> > which they expect
> >> >  * we have testable plugin code that can help the development of
> >>plugman
> >> > and cli
> >> >
> >> > The downside is clear: code in two spots. As long as the structure of
> >>the
> >> > plugin code in the plugin repo is solid (I.e. Has a plugin.xml, and
> >>base
> >> > functionality is provided for the native bits), I would be satisfied.
> >> That
> >> > would be good enough for plugins being used as test fixtures.
> >> >
> >> > Finally, once we are ready to remove all of the plugins from the core
> >> > repos (say, a few months down the road, around the time of 3.0.0rc1),
> >>we
> >> > can do it in one fell swoop, and move over any bug fixes / features
> >> landed
> >> > in the core repos for the plugins into the plugin repos.
> >> >
> >> > My $0.02.
> >> >
> >> > On 4/7/13 5:47 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > >I like the idea, but I think we should make sure that it will work
> >> before
> >> > >pulling out the plugins. E.g. plugin JS undergo a different
> >> transformation
> >> > >with the new system than with Jake. I think they'll function fine if
> >>we
> >> > >pluginstall it into our project *templates*, but for people
> >>performing
> >> > >upgrades, it'll be more complicated. Another tricky bit is ARC. We
> >> > >previously discussed holding off changing the default template to ARC
> >> > >until
> >> > >3.0. Until we do though, core plugins will not compile if added to
> >>them.
> >> > >Instead, they need to be added to the CordovaLib project, but their
> >> assets
> >> > >still need to be added to their top-level project.
> >> > >
> >> > >I think we can still get to the state where we bundle in plugins
> >>during
> >> > >packaging, but I want to avoid having code alive in two spots at
> >>once if
> >> > >possible. E.g. if we move out the java code for Accelerometer, then
> >>we
> >> > >should delete it from cordova-android. Before we do this though,
> >>plugman
> >> > >needs a bit more work on it and and also on the coho tool. E.g.
> >>plugman
> >> > >right now only works with plugin JS if you're using the "future"
> >>branch.
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > >On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Those should be rolled back in by the COHO tool (using the plugman
> >> tool)
> >> > >> for the phonegap dist.
> >> > >>
> >> > >>
> >> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Grieve
> >><agrieve@chromium.org>
> >> > >> wrote:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> > I agree that moving plugins into repos isn't tied to API
audits,
> >>but
> >> > >> > doesn't moving plugins gradually prevent our ability to do
> >>releases?
> >> > >>E.g.
> >> > >> > 2.7 is missing two plugins since they were moved into different
> >> repos.
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
wrote:
> >> > >> >
> >> > >> > > That synopsis on the wiki was super helpful Joe. I think
we
> >>should
> >> > >>stop
> >> > >> > > thinking we have to do EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. We do
not need
> >>to
> >> > >>audit
> >> > >> > any
> >> > >> > > apis. We do not need to update anything before moving
into
> >> plugins.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > We need to slowly move a plugin at a time, keep their
current
> >> APIs,
> >> > >>and
> >> > >> > > methodically move to the next API.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > Anything that does not fit: don't move it out. We'll
deal w/ it
> >> > >>later.
> >> > >> It
> >> > >> > > looks like everything 'with specs' can be moved with
relative
> >> ease.
> >> > >> Start
> >> > >> > > there. Worry about the rest when you get there. I suspect
that
> >>is
> >> > >> plenty
> >> > >> > to
> >> > >> > > try to achieve in the meantime.
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com
> >
> >> > >>wrote:
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Max Woghiren <
> >> maxw@chromium.org>
> >> > >> > wrote:
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > > > In Android, I've split out common File code
into a
> >>FileHelper
> >> > >> class.
> >> > >> > > >  It's
> >> > >> > > > > not a plugin, and will be exposed to developers.
 This is
> >>the
> >> > >>only
> >> > >> > > > > shared-code example I know of, but if we find
others (via
> >>the
> >> > >> > > visibility
> >> > >> > > > > removal test), we can similarly pull out the
common code.
> >> > >> > > > >
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > There's a lot of code that's meant to be public
on
> >> CordovaWebView,
> >> > >> > > > since CordovaWebView is supposed to be a stand-alone
> >>component
> >> > >>that's
> >> > >> > > > embeddable in other Android projects.  We really
need to
> >>decide
> >> > >>what
> >> > >> > > > to expose.  I also want to see DroidGap paired
down and gone,
> >> > >>since I
> >> > >> > > > don't want people messing with anything in that
class at all.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > > > Other than that, I can't think of any Android code
that
> >>should
> >> be
> >> > >> > > > public. That being said, I think we're getting
off-topic.  I
> >> > >>think we
> >> > >> > > > need to start on the dreaded API audit that we've
been
> >>putting
> >> > >>off.
> >> > >> > > > It's clear that every plugin will need to be updated
to the
> >>new
> >> > >>spec
> >> > >> > > > before we do this exercise.
> >> > >> > > >
> >> > >> > >
> >> > >> >
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
>
>

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