cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: WebView Promise and W3C standards
Date Thu, 11 Dec 2014 01:35:15 GMT
we should move browserify to main and drop that insane concat code

its not heavyweight at all. it creates a hash in iife with deps mapped
in…as to why dep mgmt is better than concatenating…I don't think we need to
waste our time talking about that!

On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org> wrote:

> There's something implemented behind a --browserify flag, but not sure what
> it does.
>
> Totally in favour of having CLI / plugman concatenate plugin JS with
> cordova.js, but not convinced that browserify is the right tool for this,
> as it seems quite heavy-weight for just concatenating things. If someone is
> going to resume work on it, would love to hear a summary of what problems
> it's solving (if more than concatenation), and why something more
> light-weight wouldn't be better.
>
> On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > We haven't worked on it, also curious.  Anis, perhaps?
> >
> > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> > > def think we should support those specs in our great and fabled api
> > > audit…had not considered the load order issue
> > >
> > > not insurmountable and probably should be a feature/fix for the plugin
> > > loader load order …but also sort of scary… reminds me of script tags
> hell
> > >
> > > on that note: we need to make browserify thing first class. whats the
> > hold
> > > up on that front?
> > >
> > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > Do we prefer to invent new cordova-specific apis, or prefer to match
> > > > standard browser apis?  When there is no browser spec to match then
> > > design
> > > > comes down to aesthetics and personal preference (as you say).  But
> > often
> > > > there is an existing browser spec, and then it comes down to match or
> > > > fork.  I'm in the camp of preferring to match, and was under the
> > > assumption
> > > > others here were too.
> > > >
> > > > Given the upcoming specs mentioned earlier (sockets, file,
> filesystem,
> > > > permissions, service worker, fetch), seems that fighting the adoption
> > of
> > > > promises in core apis implies opposing the adoption of modern web
> > specs.
> > > >  e.g. I'm assuming Andrew was referring to
> > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/, since matching that spec
> *would*
> > > > require promises.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Now, as I understand, you are not saying you are opposed to adoption
> of
> > > > promises in Cordova, but that you are simply against the inclusion
> of a
> > > > polyfill directly inside cordova-js.  I think that a
> promises-polyfill
> > > > plugin alternative has some technical downsides [1], but they seem
> not
> > so
> > > > insurmountable that we shouldn't just get passed this debate and do
> > that.
> > > >
> > > > In my opinion, we should prefer to create a common plugin (at least
> > until
> > > > browserify), since I really hope we don't tell devs to just include
> > their
> > > > own polyfill with each plugin.
> > > >
> > > > [1]:
> > > > - Can't rely on a polyfill plugin for cordova-js itself.  There are a
> > few
> > > > places where that may have been useful.
> > > > - We don't currently load plugins in an order that respects plugin
> > > > dependencies, so every plugin relying on promises-polyfill will have
> to
> > > > require() it at runtime before using  and forgetting to do so
> > > > may-or-may-not lead to an error.  Maybe we just fix this in our
> plugin
> > > > loader.
> > > > - It seems odd that window.Promise will exist depending on which
> > plugins
> > > > you have installed.  While this technically isn't different than with
> > any
> > > > plugin modifying global symbols, it seems odd-er when applied to a
> > > > dependant platform feature.
> > > >
> > > > -Michal
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Why does battery-status 'require' promises?
> > > > >
> > > > > I agree that promises are here to stay, but I am unclear why it
> would
> > > be
> > > > a
> > > > > good idea to go and change/rewrite/break our apis to use them?
> > > > >
> > > > > Most of the windows plugins use promises all over the place, the
> > entire
> > > > > async windows js api is promise based, but this has zero impact on
> > what
> > > > our
> > > > > core-api looks like to a user. The same should apply to any plugin
> > that
> > > > > wants to depend on promises, just depend on a promise plugin, which
> > may
> > > > or
> > > > > may not add polyfil code to the dom.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > @purplecabbage
> > > > > risingj.com
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > - no technical benefit (but aesthetics, sure)
> > > > > > - adds weight (payload and runtime)
> > > > > > - might interfere with userland polly
> > > > > >
> > > > > > -1
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Andrew Grieve <
> > agrieve@chromium.org
> > > >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > One specific spot in core I'd like to use it is to address
this
> > > TODO
> > > > in
> > > > > > > Android's exec bridge:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> https://github.com/apache/cordova-js/blob/master/src/android/exec.js#L263
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The actual need is for a setImmediate polyfill, but Promise
> does
> > > the
> > > > > same
> > > > > > > thing (with an extra object creation).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Ian Clelland <
> > > > iclelland@chromium.org
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Wed Dec 10 2014 at 10:17:38 AM Andrew Grieve <
> > > > > agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > userland means that plugins won't be able to
use them
> unless
> > > > every
> > > > > > > plugin
> > > > > > > > > also includes a copy of the polyfill within it.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Looking at our core APIs, seems maybe it's just
> > battery-status
> > > > that
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > > > require it. Should we have battery-status include
the
> > polyfill
> > > > > within
> > > > > > > > it? I
> > > > > > > > > hope not. I'd hate to get to where several plugins
in my
> app
> > > all
> > > > > > bundle
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > same polyfill.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I believe that Mozilla's new File API, which I think
we're
> > > planning
> > > > > to
> > > > > > > > implement, and which should be as core as File is
now, is
> also
> > > > > heavily
> > > > > > > > promises-based.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If we move to having the entire cordova.js built
using
> > > browserify
> > > > > > where
> > > > > > > > > every plugin gets to contribute to the JS that
goes into
> it -
> > > > yes I
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > > > see
> > > > > > > > > this solving this use-case as well. But that
also seems to
> me
> > > > like
> > > > > a
> > > > > > > much
> > > > > > > > > larger and much more controversial change.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Whether you are for or against promises - they
are already
> > > here.
> > > > > They
> > > > > > > > > exists natively on most latest mobile webviews,
and every
> > > vendor
> > > > > has
> > > > > > > > > committed to adding them. And they are being
used in *most*
> > new
> > > > > specs
> > > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > > > I've seen (sockets, filesystem, permissions,
service
> worker,
> > > > fetch)
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Are there any concrete downsides to putting Promises
> polyfill
> > > > right
> > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > cordova-js?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > As long as the promise doesn't clobber the native
> > implementation,
> > > > if
> > > > > it
> > > > > > > > exists, and we can remove it completely from platforms
when
> > they
> > > > > don't
> > > > > > > need
> > > > > > > > it anymore, it seems to me like a small price for
having this
> > > > > available
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > all platforms. (Other opinions vary, I'm sure, though)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Joe Bowser <
> > bowserj@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > +1 to userland. I see other approaches causing
more
> > problems.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > BTW: The only time I use promises is when
the platform
> > > > explicitly
> > > > > > > > > requires
> > > > > > > > > > it, and right now that's just MozillaView.
 While I think
> > it
> > > > > looks
> > > > > > > > > awesome,
> > > > > > > > > > I view Promises as a luxury right now and
not a standard
> > > > feature
> > > > > as
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > yet.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I also really wish specs wouldn't rely on
code that only
> > > exists
> > > > > on
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > very
> > > > > > > > > > latest browsers. It just makes life harder
on people who
> > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > > implement
> > > > > > > > > > stuff.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

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