cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michael Brooks <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca>
Subject Re: Naming: cordova-2.8.0.js --> cordova.js
Date Thu, 02 May 2013 00:03:32 GMT
Jeff, thanks for the valuable recap!

That is exactly the difference I was talking about. I would propose that
> instead of native placing the file there, we just make it a final part of
> the build step. Just as we've done with other CLI tasks, make a micro
> cordova script to do it, and have it called right before build.


It would be fantastic to move the script injection logic out of the CLI and
into the project build step. It would be really nice if we could:

1) Add cordova.js to www/
2) Add the script reference to each HTML file.

Doing this at build-time helps remove the dynamic injection issues of
WebView API support and race-conditions.

Michael


On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:10 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:

> Or we put the version in the filename.
>
> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Jesse MacFadyen <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Interesting journey, Jeffery.
> > What if instead of linking from www/index.html to www/cordova.js, we
> > put the js in the app root above www?
> >
> > Or: <script src='../cordova.js'
> >
> > Then the www folder would be more portable, would this work everywhere?
> > I know ios/wp7/wp8/windows8 would all work this way.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >   Jesse
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone5
> >
> > On 2013-05-01, at 8:42 AM, Jeffrey Heifetz <jheifetz@blackberry.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > Tl;dr I'd like to propose a different but similar solution based on the
> > evolution of WebWorks. That we automatically inject cordova.js into a
> > specific place in the app (say the root since thats where cordova_plugins
> > is) and then the developer simply adds a script tag to the correct
> > location accounting for the build command to place it there for them.
> This
> > guarantees they will always have a script compatible with the native
> > components.
> >
> > For those who don't know, at blackberry we worked on a proprietary web
> > platform roughly equivalent to cordova, that the cordova implementation
> > was based on.
> >
> > When we re-wrote it we initially copied the cordova approach and named
> our
> > file webworks-version.js. Then we made the switch exactly like the one
> > being proposed here and went with webworks.js.
> >    The very next version we had a huge problem where people were
> forgetting
> > to update their scripts constantly.
> >    We next tried to solve this by adding code to make sure that the
> script
> > tag was compatible with the native code. This worked fine but was still a
> > large hassle for developers and especially people publishing things like
> > samples since their script was constantly out of date.
> >    Finally we settled on the solution I'm proposing here, where we
> injected
> > the script into approot/chrome/webworks.js and the html referenced it
> > there. We never had any problems or complaints since.
> >
> > On 13-05-01 4:01 AM, "Giorgio Natili" <g.natili@gnstudio.com> wrote:
> >
> >> +1 cordova.js with version as a header comment
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, May 1, 2013 at 6:15 AM, Benn Mapes <benn.mapes@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> +1 for sure....
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 2:39 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> +1!
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:19 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> +1
> >>>>>
> >>>>> @purplecabbage
> >>>>> risingj.com
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 1:04 PM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 12:54 PM, James Jong
> >>> <wjamesjong@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> +1 Cleaner.  Thanks Andrew!
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -James Jong
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Apr 30, 2013, at 3:31 PM, Lorin Beer
> >>> <lorin.beer.dev@gmail.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>> duplicated information is a good redundancy to remove
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:41 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Sounds good. FTR we did it for issue tracking not
> >>> arbitrarily.
> >>>>> Having
> >>>>>>>>> a stamp at the top of the file fulfills the same
end.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> If I recall correctly the original reason was
because
> >>> putting
> >>> the
> >>>>>>> version
> >>>>>>>>>> in after the lib name in the JS filename was
what "other
> >>>> libraries
> >>>>>> did"
> >>>>>>>>>> aka jQuery.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> +1 from me.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 4/30/13 11:24 AM, "tommy-carlos Williams"
<
> >>> tommy@devgeeks.org
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> +1
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Wouldn't this make mobile spec easier too?
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> On 01/05/2013, at 4:20, Andrew Grieve
> >>> <agrieve@chromium.org>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> This has been brought up a few times,
but I'm not sure
> >>> there's
> >>>>>> been a
> >>>>>>>>>>>> decisive answer here yet...
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> iOS now uses "cordova.ios.js"
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Android uses "cordova.android.js", but
renames it in a
> >>> build
> >>>> step
> >>>>>> to
> >>>>>>>>>>>> add in
> >>>>>>>>>>>> the version number.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> CLI normalizes to "cordova.js"
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> The version number is now stamped at
the top of the file
> >>> in a
> >>>>> code
> >>>>>>>>>>>> comment,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and I feel that having it in the file
name just makes work
> >>> for
> >>>> us
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> our
> >>>>>>>>>>>> users. I'd like to change all repos
to just use
> >>> "cordova.js".
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Any objections?
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Andrew
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
> > information, privileged material (including material protected by the
> > solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
> > non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other
> > than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
> > transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and
> > delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination,
> > distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended
> > recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.
>

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