cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Browserify JS is in
Date Sun, 14 Dec 2014 23:22:53 GMT
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