cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From purplecabbage <purplecabb...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Looking for input on syntax to use for specifying plugin deps in config.xml
Date Wed, 23 Apr 2014 04:35:40 GMT
I think consistency with input and output config.xml files makes more sense than consistency
with plugin.xml. So +1 <feature/>

Sent from my iPhone

> On Apr 22, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.ercan@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:
>> 
>> Anis - Gorkem wants <feature> since it works with his IDE. *Why* do
>> you prefer <feature>?
> Just to be clear I am not trying to push for <feature> because it works on
> the JBoss/Eclipse IDE now. I do not mind ripping it apart and implementing
> a new editor if there is a good benefit. However I favor <feature> because
> it allows validation and content assist due to its XSD (I think we have
> discussed about this earlier) which is probably the only benefit of the xml
> markup on a configuration file these days.
> 
> If we use dependency for defining the plugins to be restored it does not
> mean that <feature> magically disappears. It is still used by the platform
> runtimes and therefore the CLI generated config.xml files. I guess that
> would mean we still need to keep the documentation etc for it around.
> 
> Also one thing that I have noticed when implementing the restore for
> plugins because all the information is given as <param>s under feature it
> is very easily extendible. For instance if someday we want to support
> enterprise plugin registries, we could just add <param name="registry"
> value="http://registry.acme.corp" /> and use the value on the
> implementation. Same could be done to dependency by adding another
> attribute which would break the validations etc.
> 
> 
> 
>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I prefer <feature>.
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Mark Koudritsky <kamrik@google.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> I prefer the <dependency> syntax. It's shorter, more intuitive and
>>>> consistent with plugin.xml. I don't see much value in _partial_
>> compliance
>>>> with the w3c spec.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@google.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Gorkem is adding awesome feature to restore plugins/platforms your app
>>>>> depends on.  There is some debate on the correct syntax to use in the
>>>>> config.xml file: do we use (a) plugin.xml style <dependency> tags,
or
>> (b)
>>>>> w3c widget spec <feature> tags?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Gorkem votes (b), arguing that using widget spec helps his tools with
>>>>> editing config.xml (existing gui editor, I assume?), and has
>> implemented
>>>> a
>>>>> PR for it (https://github.com/apache/cordova-cli/pull/165).
>>>>> 
>>>>> I vote (a), arguing that we already don't match widget spec, and
>> already
>>>>> have established syntax for for specifying plugin urls & versions
in
>>>>> plugin.xml (with docs and examples), and its better for our CLI
>>>>> implementation to use existing plugin deps handlers.
>>>>> 
>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Background: read full thread titled "[GitHub] cordova-cli pull
>> request:
>>>>> CB-6469"
>> 

Mime
View raw message