cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Fischer, Paul A" <>
Subject RE: 3.6 cordova plugin versions
Date Wed, 01 Oct 2014 20:13:33 GMT
Hi Michal,

Thanks for the clarification. What you describe is what I expected, and I totally understand
the issues around trying to tightly specify what version works where, getting independent
plugin developers to follow through with testing, etc. It's an impossible matrix to maintain.

In essence, based on the process you outline, I am assuming something like the following badly
formatted timeline of releases:

-- cordova X.Y release --
Core Cordova plugins tested against are listed by individual version (provided in release
Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
Core Cordova plugin B gets updated
Core Cordova plugin C gets updated
Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
Core Cordova plugin D gets updated
Core Cordova plugin A gets updated
-- cordova X.Z release --
Core Cordova plugins tested against are listed (provided in release notes/blog)
...similar to above
-- cordova Y.A release --

So one can generally "assume" that those core plugin versions listed in the release notes
of a Cordova framework, up to those versions listed in the next Cordova framework release
are "safe" to use with the immediately preceding release of the framework.

I ask only because our users are not all sophisticated Cordova users (I represent Intel and
the XDK) and trying to come up with some general guidelines. They are limited to the Cordova
CLI versions that we provide build support for, so they can't just update the CLI to meet
the needs of a specific plugin.

Thanks for the quick replies, sorry mine was so long in coming,


-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Michal Mocny
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 09:00
To: dev
Subject: Re: 3.6 cordova plugin versions


You are right.  When we do a platform release, we test with the latest plugins to make sure
the platform isn't breaking things.  When we do a plugins release, we test with the latest
platforms to make sure the plugins are breaking things.

In theory, we should know when plugins depend on a certain minimum platform version, and even
have a plugin.xml tag to specify this (<engine>), though its a bit indirect and in practice
I'm not sure that the requirements are well specified (many plugins just say >= 3.0.0).

I think whether you consider this a problem depends a bit on your workflow and cordova development
philosophy.  Namely, do you make any native platform changes directly in platforms/?  If so,
upgrading to the latest of everything all the time is a burden, and you may want well specified
compatibility.  On the other hand, if your platforms/ are treated as build artefacts, and
all your work is in hooks/ plugins/ and www/, its quite trivial to upgrade platforms, sample
different plugin versions, and experiment.

In theory, we want to support both flows.  In practice, its quite tedious and relies on plugin
authors to put in the legwork, which doesn't usually happen.  If you were interested in testing
plugins on older cordova platform versions, or perhaps you already maintain a list, that would
be useful to share with us.  However long term, I'd personally prefer to see people less hesitant
to just upgrade often, and that has certainly been the trend.


On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:48 AM, Ray Camden <> wrote:

> Just being annoying. ;) I can see this type of question though being 
> something users will bring up.
> On 9/30/14, 9:46 AM, "Shazron" <> wrote:
> >He didnt ask that question, but Ray: yes.
> >
> >On Tuesday, September 30, 2014, Ray Camden <> wrote:
> >
> >> Does it make sense to clarify that statement though? Not *every* 
> >>plugin is  tested like this, just the ³Core² set of Cordova plugins. 
> >>If someone has a  random plugin for Cowbell, there is no guarantee 
> >>that it will work on  _any_ release, right? (I know we were talking 
> >>about core plugins, but I  just wanted to be sure.)
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9/30/14, 9:04 AM, "Shazron" < <javascript:;>>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
View raw message