cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ian Clelland <iclell...@google.com>
Subject Re: new meta data for plugin.xml
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2013 13:28:59 GMT
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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message