cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org>
Subject Re: Browserify JS is in
Date Mon, 15 Dec 2014 02:56:47 GMT
Lets discuss the cordova_plugins.js thing elsewhere, this thread has forked
a lot already.

On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Carlos Santana <csantana23@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> This is the part that I like the most:
> "and start
> writing plugins as proper node modules. Maybe even push them to npm and
> manage dependencies that way."
>
> Agree with having less XHR, and concatenate cordova + plugins.
> Not in love with cordova_plugins.js to know what plugins are included in
> the app, would prefer to see a package.json with all software that was use
> to build the app, and maybe one day could a be a real valid pacakge.json
> that can be use to pull down dependencies.
>
> The same way we depend on npm, elementree, and dozen more npm modules that
> our platforms and cli depend on, we don't distribute browserfy will be just
> another one.
> One thing I will consider with browserfy if there is a any code coming from
> browserfy like the bootstrap code that contains the require function, then
> maybe only this code get's legally review as it going to be part of the App
> that developer builds with cordova.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io> wrote:
> >
> > yeah we are *not* proposing to distribute browserify or its deps
> >
> > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > What are we actually distributing?
> > >
> > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 12:36:03 PM Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bowserj@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:25:51 AM Andrew Grieve <
> > agrieve@chromium.org>
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not actually worried about my disk filling up. Dependencies
> > must
> > > be
> > > > > > vetted for appropriate licenses, so now there's more overhead
> here.
> > > If
> > > > we
> > > > > > need to make a change to the module system now we need to poor
> > > through
> > > > > docs
> > > > > > and make PRs instead of just editing our very small code-base.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > This mix of MIT and 3-Clause BSD looks compatible to me.  It's
> weaker
> > > > than
> > > > > Apache, but not incompatible.  Do we really need to send this to
> > legal?
> > > > > https://github.com/substack/node-browserify/blob/master/LICENSE
> > > > >
> > > > > There are people who can argue your other points better, but saying
> > > that
> > > > > the license is the overhead when you can find it in the repo?  I'm
> > not
> > > > sure
> > > > > how we would have gotten this far if we had to check with legal for
> > > every
> > > > > single dependency.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I meant that it depends on a bunch of other modules. Run
> > license-checker
> > > on
> > > > browserify and you get: http://pastebin.com/XDMCTRRb
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
>
> --
> Carlos Santana
> <csantana23@gmail.com>
>

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