cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <>
Subject Re: android target level
Date Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:43:26 GMT
The whole point is to have one APK across all official Android versions.
This requirement is going to confuse pur users even more and make
maintaining the platform next to impossible.  Web developers shouldn't have
to know about API level.

The fact is that we've been fairly successful in maintaining the ability to
create one apk to run on as many Android devices as possible and to go back
on this would flush years of hard work down the drain for zero benefit.

We might as well completely fork Android so that we have a version of the
platform for each version, since right now, I'm fairly certain the code
does not build on API level 10.

The only reason that I heard to make this configurable is the use case
where someone is using an old version of Cordova and it no longer compiles
on the latest SDK. This occurred once in the entire history of the project,
and was a specialized use case for PhoneGap build, which has to support
this due to user demand.  This is why I think that Cordova should create
projects that support and target the latest widely adopted version of
Android at the time of release.  In the case of 3.2.0, that would be
Android 4.3.

Other than the above narrow use case, there is zero reason to have this be
On Nov 7, 2013 4:09 AM, "Axel Nennker" <> wrote:

> I think the highest level is not what developers need.
> When you create a product/app you want your app to run on as many devices
> as possible and not only the latest.
> Am 07.11.2013 11:36 schrieb "Brian LeRoux" <>:
> > Apologies I think there is another thread about this but I'd like to
> > understand more about what we're thinking here. There's been discussion
> > that we should make this configurable. I disagree. I think we need to
> > target highest available level possible, as we always have in the past,
> and
> > take backwards compat on. That means we need to update [1].
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > [1]
> >
> >
> >

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