Mailing-List: contact dev-help@cordova.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of stevengill97@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.216.51 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAEeF2Te-+tpc3zuELJTUrb8cQoFENpue=A5FLJnLADdSH83mQQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CANpVHHx-_myfoSpkOqSRjzYY7nQ_N0HAV66xMr_oUUMDJSKWgQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEeF2TeQMCH1Rqfzg4MevQKTRDw4a3o=cQs5hbdDZLhoSbvM3A@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1UQ+ginHOVdniHCXgP=wnvqP3mWAgmnhmpRGAFMKca7ew@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1X=sP7RR3pQuvBiY2w3t_A0nf-+EOEL0B87Eor0ShTN5g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpVHHznJsLJG6UnEyYDh-=8bT3001F2tkCsaVRTm5TSLQibAg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1VEN_pq++knpHAh3AgQ62ZxRNEQJtS8BaYJC8XT+HyeFw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpVHHwY6Frr1ryAha_7e0b_kmkFgmYCd_wJKP_jghmTLV3r_Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+h2+t2Q9EZi59wcw6kg737+CrJ0QESf6HrtCjGyWPPUneWPuw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpVHHy_7HRKnEtfVWbf1rDXdbbLcU8DqtvSxtWBeAjjV7sLgg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEeF2TehW1UugMXrmT71sAU9F+AMPJCS-6LpR5zKDFxPRDxtNg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpVHHzwCgvoRN1JFDOR_J_fO3C+cKJYZgCp_V=2kt44YOrwTw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+h2+t0s2zFK=Zh6kv8Nh1beOBpbje=n2QXONNw=99QbXXF1ww@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADVgkyOJrCA7x=phng0oSVeC6objpQTi6+-iTfQzSrvrV=OYrA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBL_k6Mv8GPCtjm5Do2aQFQc7fnhQ4Hpn5quXyCSLCm6VpEEg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1Xr5JDaAR57RbMVQvw43hDNCc-UL3x=3awYZgAvHq8_QQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1XTZMrLe4sK_xO7BaK75=HOPSX4APpaLy0ssq47c4wgXg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBL_k6wK0bzy89LyKDBQiNF2_PZmB8muARLivHgct-t5hax=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABiQX1WZP+HCoxqO7Dh5RjHtsb0foyNdrG3JgLLEzCaaog8xjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOBL_k6ENvWGZY_+6BBHQrmAv+Rs+kB4kH-JEaHJ9adq9w6tGw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CADVgkyM1POfPpy0WDg+J7uADPOpCjG7bA4V3Xc4DJh0MOTzZdQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAHYtTq=AE-43NgE5XUqy+5JPFTewZ4cqcxLQGbHcQBQ8+eC-OA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAEeF2Te-+tpc3zuELJTUrb8cQoFENpue=A5FLJnLADdSH83mQQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2014 21:15:18 -0800
Message-ID: 
 <CAMSbhBgs=a=0RbObiV=tH8OSsJtq6YtU+t5ndoSqNjvp+xgV4w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Browserify JS is in
From: Steven Gill <stevengill97@gmail.com>
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c231da1bf6f1050a3a54ee

--001a11c231da1bf6f1050a3a54ee
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

For the lazy: cordova_plugins.js discussion
https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/CB-8153
On Dec 14, 2014 6:58 PM, "Michal Mocny" <mmocny@chromium.org> wrote:

> 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>
> >
>

--001a11c231da1bf6f1050a3a54ee--