cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jonathan Bond-Caron <jbo...@gdesolutions.com>
Subject RE: [cordova-js] do we need <clobbers/>, <merges/> ?
Date Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:10:13 GMT
On Wed Apr 9 08:40 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote:
> 
> The cons are wrong. You can import plugins and indeed you can test plugins.
> The statement that we shouldn't need to compile/transpile is not correct if we
> want to evolve things. Its the only path we have that will keep things backwards
> compatible. (That we could determine.) 

I put up an example here:
https://github.com/gdesolutions/ja-lib/tree/master/tests/plugins/file.encrypt

The cons were against the current plugin.xml & <clobbers/>, <merges/>
To be clear, it's a pro for using something like browserify.

If part of the net benefit is we can have a story like:
cordova create plugin file.encrypt
https://github.com/gdesolutions/ja-lib/tree/master/tests/plugins/file.encrypt/package.json

Extend existing plugin:
https://github.com/gdesolutions/ja-lib/tree/master/tests/plugins/file.encrypt/LocalFileSystem-es6.js

cordova plugin test <--- this (runs in some bleeding edge browser)

That's a big win / net benefit for being more opiniated about the module format.

The browserify node.js story looks like:
https://github.com/gdesolutions/ja-lib/tree/master/tests/plugins/file.encrypt/LocalFileSystem.js

But trying to bring the entire node.js api *into* the browser is a big hack, turning an apple
into an orange.

Mime
View raw message