cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian>
Subject Re: Plugin / Platform mismatch problems
Date Mon, 29 Jul 2013 23:28:47 GMT
I have a parallel conversation rolling w/ the node guys and they're
hoping to convince us to move everything to the npm registry itself.
(Or at least be compatible to do so.)

I think this is a worthwhile goal but it does mean:

- plugin.xml gets either deprecated for package.json or we continue
tool that impedance mismatch
- install on the npm side needs to learn about cordova (yes issac is
open to this!)

Did I miss anything Anis?

Thoughts [larger group]?

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Anis KADRI <> wrote:
> Agree.
> For the last point. There is a <keywords> tag added to the spec to
> facilitate search. Has to be added by plugin author.
> I am going to drop the current names for the registry and republish
> them with the new convention. Unless anyone has any objections. We'll
> implement that prefixing right after.
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Filip Maj <> wrote:
>> I think what would work is:
>> - use ids to uniquely identify
>> - prepending org.apache.cordova.core or w/e our core plugin namespace is
>> as a fallback attempt to match makes sense
>> - finally, for discovery/searching, we should do searches vs a plugin's
>> <description> field and do our best to enforce good descriptions on
>> plugins being submitted to the apache cordova registry
>> On 7/29/13 1:13 PM, "Anis KADRI" <> wrote:
>>>Right but npm registry uses JSON not XML. I think prefixing core
>>>plugins when no package name is provided is a good idea.
>>>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Marcel Kinard <> wrote:
>>>> That could be accomplished with XSLT. And XPath has basic query
>>>>capability. James Jong and I have skills in those.
>>>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Filip Maj <> wrote:
>>>>> Ahh yeah. Some kind of at-publish-time conversion of certain plugin.xml
>>>>> fields to json fields?
>>>>> On 7/26/13 10:27 AM, "Anis KADRI" <> wrote:
>>>>>> I think XML is not a query friendly language. I suggest we add an
>>>>>> engine field initially and then add fields as we need them. I suspect
>>>>>> we won't be needing the bulk of plugin.xml in the registry. I have
>>>>>> experiment with custom fields still but it seems possible. I will
>>>>>> report back sometime today.

View raw message