cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Lucas Holmquist <lholm...@redhat.com>
Subject Re: new meta data for plugin.xml
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:09:26 GMT
yea,  this is understandable.   wasn't really sure the reasoning,  but it looks like diminishing
returns here
On Oct 21, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:

> XML is also buying us a couple of small but nice features, such as
> optionally wrapping tags with a <platform> tag or (potentially) a <mode>
> tag, etc.  That functionality would not be expressed as cleanly with JSON,
> so its not a pure win to move away from XML.
> 
> Add to that the fact that we are already perceived to change stuff way too
> often for no due cause, I just really don't see the value.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ian Clelland <iclelland@google.com> wrote:
> 
>> I suspect that it is because plugin.xml was derived (intellectually, if not
>> literally) from config.xml, which was an XML file because of the W3C
>> Widgets spec, which we tried to adhere to.
>> 
>> Whether that spec is still relevant (there doesn't seem to be a lot of
>> vendor interest in it (speaking as an Apache member, *not* as a vendor
>> representative)) is definitely up for debate. There probably are some gains
>> to be made in switching to a JSON config format, given how much of the
>> project is JavaScript these days, but it might not be worth all of the work
>> it would take to do it.
>> 
>> Ian
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com
>>> wrote:
>> 
>>> Perhaps this has been brought up before,  but why are we using an xml
>>> file?  why not make it a json file.
>>> 
>>> Plugman is written in node( js ) so why not have the plugin "config" file
>>> in it's native format.  This will probably save a bit of code since the
>> xml
>>> is converted to an object to manipulate anyway.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> i know this is a little off topic.
>>> 
>>> thoughts?
>>> 
>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I have created an issue to keep track of the registry refactor.
>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-5130
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> I added some validation for plugin names (to follow
>>>>> reverse-domain-name convention) a couple of weeks ago but there needs
>>>>> to be more of it for sure.
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com
>>> 
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> I have created an issue to track the meta tag addition.
>>>>>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-5128
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I agree with doing validation with plugman during publish time. We
>>> should
>>>>>> decide soon which ones are going to be mandatory and which ones will
>> be
>>>>>> optional. Probably update the plugin spec + our docs around creating
>>>>>> plugins as well.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Shazron <shazron@gmail.com>
wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Perhaps either plugman or the registry should do some validation,
>> and
>>>>> have
>>>>>>> some "required" fields? I know that PhoneGap Build when you try
to
>>>>> submit a
>>>>>>> plugin they error out if you are missing some fields that they
>>> require.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Gorkem Ercan <
>>> gorkem.ercan@gmail.com
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> +1 for adding metadata but should more of the metadata be
>> compulsory?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> JBoss tools plugin discovery uses the cordova.io registry
and some
>>>>> of
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> plugins are missing a lot to.  http://snag.gy/aAxjL.jpg is
a
>>>>> screenshot
>>>>>>>> that shows how the case. http://snag.gy/J8rl6.jpg is a screenshot
>> of
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> few
>>>>>>>> plugins that has most of its data. As you can see with the
missing
>>>>>>>> descriptions etc. it is not possible to do an informed decision
on
>>>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> to use a plugin or not. Although information such as keywords
does
>>> not
>>>>>>> seem
>>>>>>>> like important it becomes quite useful when you are trying
to find
>> a
>>>>>>>> certain plugin.
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Gorkem
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org
>>> 
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> +1 to repo / issue / website / docs etc metadata
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> -1 *for now* to dependencies at specific versions, and
testing
>>>>> related
>>>>>>>>> changes like <mode>, just because its not clear
what the right
>>>>> solution
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> these problems is.  We do need to address it, but those
topics
>> will
>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>>> move to separate discussions.
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Lucas Holmquist <
>>>>> lholmqui@redhat.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> i was just thinking the same thing  :)
>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Carlos Santana <
>>>>> csantana23@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> plugin.xml metadata is looking more and more
like a package.json
>>>>>>>> (i.e.
>>>>>>>>>> npm)
>>>>>>>>>>> ;-p
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Steve Gill
<
>>>>>>> stevengill97@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes I meant plugins.xml
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Lucas Holmquist
<
>>>>>>> lholmqui@redhat.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Steven
Gill <
>>>>>>> stevengill97@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So looks like want to to start including
more data on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://plugins.cordova.io.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Repo tag -> points to repo where
plugin lives
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Issue tag -> points to issue tracker
(with component for
>>>>> jira)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Testing related (can get discussed
more in testing thread
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Mode tag -> to differentiate between
testing mode and normal
>>>>>>> mode
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> JS module tag for test module
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dependency related
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding version number to dependency
tags so they don't just
>>>>> grab
>>>>>>>>>> latest
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> always. Multiple approaches were
discussed and this
>>>>> discussion
>>>>>>>>> should
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> probably happen in a new thread.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on above? Suggestions for
other meta data we should
>>>>>>> look
>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> adding to config.xml?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did you mean plugin.xml?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> Carlos Santana
>>>>>>>>>>> <csantana23@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 


Mime
View raw message