cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: new meta data for plugin.xml
Date Mon, 21 Oct 2013 14:41:04 GMT
I'd be happier if it were JSON, but it's not, and the XML doesn't cause
enough pain to be worth making the switch.

Ian explained it accurately; it's mostly a historical accident that we're
using XML.

Braden


On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholmqui@redhat.com>wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message