cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [cordova-js] do we need <clobbers/>, <merges/> ?
Date Wed, 09 Apr 2014 23:51:33 GMT
On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:41 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

> It's a change of semantics. We can't just dump them. I'll admit that the
> syntax is confusing - we've already discussed making it a bit nicer and
> there's an old bug for making it more obvious.
>

I think we should make them inexistant and then it doesn't have to be
obvious.


>
> *But* - less code - no, now there's more code in every plugin.
>

If we made clobber/merges a lib, there would be one or two lines to add at
the bottom of each module. Two lines is not what I consider a lot of code.


> Less complexity? This is subjective.
>

If those tags don't exist, plugin.xml becomes a tad simpler.


> Is this even worth putting our time into? Is this addressing a problem? I
> don't think so, but that's just my opinion.
>

Yes. The problem being that as much as clobber/merges are needed, their
respective declarative tags are not.


>
> One common usage of <runs/> is to have a module tell cordova not to fire
> deviceready until the plugin says it's ready. For app-harness, this change
> will add significant complexity, because instead right now we include all
> modules (even for those the app we're launching doesn't want), and that's a
> harmless thing to do. If things change so that all modules are executed on
> start-up, we'll have to re-package at runtime our version of cordova.js.
>

This is a good point to add to the other thread. This thread is only for
clobber and merges.

>
>
> On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
>
> > I agree. And less code!
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Dump them, I see no use for a declarative level of indirection.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > @purplecabbage
> > > risingj.com
> > >
> > >
> > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org
> >
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I think symbol mapping comes with some nuances, and having the them
> > in
> > > a
> > > > > declarative way makes it easier than telling all plugins to write
> > their
> > > > JS
> > > > > in a certain way.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Makes what "exactly" easier ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > It's a level of indirection that gives us the ability to
> > > > > control exactly *when* the mapping happens for example.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Why does this matter ?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > The question of whether we *need* them is not a good way to phrase
> > it I
> > > > > think. Rather:
> > > > > Pros? Cons? Worth changing at this point?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Pros: I don't see any. Like Michal suggested in another post, I see
> the
> > > > benefit of having a lib (builder.js) that clobbers/merges namespaces
> > that
> > > > plugins could consume. I don't see the benefits of dedicated XML
> tags.
> > > >
> > > > Cons:
> > > >
> > > > Unnecessary complexity
> > > >
> > > > It is not worth changing. Just worth dropping support for in my
> > opinion.
> > > > And not now but 6 months after we decide to do it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > +1
> > > > > > On Apr 4, 2014 10:22 PM, "Michal Mocny" <mmocny@chromium.org>
> > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > To be clear: support for the tags is needed for plugins
to work
> > as
> > > > they
> > > > > > do
> > > > > > > now.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I'm optimistic that we could replacing them with a library,
but
> > > > Andrew
> > > > > > had
> > > > > > > a few good points in the other thread for us to make sure
we
> > don't
> > > > > > > overlook.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Lets just prototype it on the core plugins, shall we?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Anis KADRI <
> > anis.kadri@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Yes the library exists (it's common/builder.js) and
it can be
> > > used
> > > > by
> > > > > > > > plugins and yes it runs on startup automatically (unless
we
> > tell
> > > it
> > > > > not
> > > > > > > > too) by require()ing the library and calling the appropriate
> > > > method.
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > do
> > > > > > > > you agree that the tags are not needed then ?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Michal Mocny <
> > > mmocny@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > As commented in another thread, these are super
useful,
> but I
> > > see
> > > > > > some
> > > > > > > > hope
> > > > > > > > > to replacing them with a library instead of tooling
> support.
> > >  We
> > > > > > would
> > > > > > > > > still need to run these automatically on startup
somehow.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Anis KADRI <
> > > anis.kadri@gmail.com
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > and I mean the tags. plugins should be able
to
> > clobber/merge
> > > > the
> > > > > > > window
> > > > > > > > > (or
> > > > > > > > > > any other context) if they need to. We can
advise
> > developers
> > > to
> > > > > use
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > > > > builder module that does just that or they
can write
> their
> > > own
> > > > > > > > > > clobber/merges code.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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