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 23:55:26 GMT
Ya, the Node characters in this story that I'm talking w/ are dshaw,
mikeal, izs, and joemccann. All pushing we go this route and YES its
super easier than it sounds. =P

Agree on discovery getting a little harder but this isn't an exclusive
move but rather an additive operation. That is to say, they want us to
have a compatibility but in no way are saying we use the npm registry
for our core plugins.

So: package.json, install, and uninstall are the tricks to this pony.
I think we can easily get consensus for moving to package.json using
our current technique. I'll talk to them further about the
install/uninstall business.

The next version of Node will be shipping w/ the npm registry included
so this is actually rather cool for us as the install would become:
install node.

On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Anis KADRI <> wrote:
> I spoke with @dshaw about this and told him why it was (currently) not
> an option for Cordova.
> Specifically (un)install actions and dependency management are
> different. It seems like a a lot of overhead to get npm to do what
> plugman (un)install does.
> Everything else is pretty much the same and moving from plugin.xml to
> package.json won't hurt us I don't think. I guess we wouldn't be able
> to do XSLTs to validate documents but...other than that it would be a
> logical move.
> The other thing too is that npm is mainly for nodejs and/or javascript
> packages and getting Cordova plugins in there can make search and
> discovery harder. There are currently 36,472 NPMs as of this writing.
> The counter-argument to this is that there are npm modules that use
> native codes to execute. Some of them even require some third-party
> interpreters (Ruby, Python, etc...).
> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Brian LeRoux <> wrote:
>> 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 <>
>>>>>> 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
>>>>>>> fields to json fields?
>>>>>>> On 7/26/13 10:27 AM, "Anis KADRI" <>
>>>>>>>> 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 to
>>>>>>>> experiment with custom fields still but it seems possible.
I will
>>>>>>>> report back sometime today.

View raw message