Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 0A61110884 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:08:30 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 30794 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jul 2013 17:08:29 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-cordova-dev-archive@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 30711 invoked by uid 500); 12 Jul 2013 17:08:29 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list dev@cordova.apache.org Received: (qmail 30695 invoked by uid 99); 12 Jul 2013 17:08:28 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:08:28 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=FRT_ADOBE2,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of fil@adobe.com designates 64.18.1.208 as permitted sender) Received: from [64.18.1.208] (HELO exprod6og107.obsmtp.com) (64.18.1.208) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 17:08:23 +0000 Received: from outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com ([192.150.11.134]) by exprod6ob107.postini.com ([64.18.5.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUeA38m8UTw0bn+WvWfayRHKJprWgbGKz@postini.com; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:08:03 PDT Received: from inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com ([153.32.1.51]) by outbound-smtp-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r6CH4dD8003463 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:04:39 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nahub02.corp.adobe.com (nahub02.corp.adobe.com [10.8.189.98]) by inner-relay-1.corp.adobe.com (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id r6CH826A003050 for ; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:08:02 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nambxv01a.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.95]) by nahub02.corp.adobe.com ([10.8.189.98]) with mapi; Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:08:02 -0700 From: Filip Maj To: "dev@cordova.apache.org" Date: Fri, 12 Jul 2013 10:07:59 -0700 Subject: Re: Converting scripts to node Thread-Topic: Converting scripts to node Thread-Index: Ac5/Il2ivYu4fl7qTwOSDyp2Zly+kA== Message-ID: In-Reply-To: Accept-Language: en-US Content-Language: en-US X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.5.130515 acceptlanguage: en-US Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org Main benefit here is abstracting away two scripts for *nix & windows-compatible platforms like android and blackberry. BB already uses node for those anyways.. On 7/12/13 9:47 AM, "Brian LeRoux" wrote: >Most of the scripts themselves shell out to things like adb or >whatever so putting another layer of scripting abstraction over top >feels unnecessary (to me). I suppose the benefit is that on Android >we'd have less code? > >Are there other benefits? > > > >On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Andrew Grieve >wrote: >> Cool! >> >> I don't think npm is a good idea for them since that will add another >> avenue for mistakes to be made. Shelling out to them seems fine. You can >> also just require() them if you're sure they aren't going to mess up >>you're >> apps state (e.g. change your CWD), but shelling out is certainly safer. >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Filip Maj wrote: >> >>> Don't think for android specifically there has been any work on this >>> >>> On 7/11/13 2:55 PM, "Andrew Grieve" wrote: >>> >>> >We talked about unifying on node post 3.0 for our scripts (e.g. >>>android >>> >create script). >>> > >>> >Was wondering if anyone had started on this? >>> >>>