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: message received from 54.76.25.247 which
 is an MX secondary for dev@cordova.apache.org)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: mmocny@google.com
In-Reply-To: 
 <CABiQX1Xxwp3n0XtjdWB1S6V02YkpdB7027fyxrgixRhPUgaTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAEeF2TffuBPzMX9qEhRvz0WcKhHA+1Kx0jYsBg-UP1NAnOPLwA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAEeF2TfUyqwK1faT10EVMn3S3O+8fPPGLVg3ECqVaVkxeAiW4A@mail.gmail.com>
 <DM2PR03MB366EC5072980D0B8D18BE70D6E00@DM2PR03MB366.namprd03.prod.outlook.com>
 <CAKP6k2uC7wfKS45+88P=LYnN6Tn3oSBd=of14oqtVPVTRdqd7g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAMSbhBhURB_k3NQQjO=954M7aNPqkr3_zWQPSZzxiGjR8Uw17Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <FFD143336FEF2D41AFA4D9CE7E119BA1595659C4@FMSMSX112.amr.corp.intel.com>
 <CABiQX1Xxwp3n0XtjdWB1S6V02YkpdB7027fyxrgixRhPUgaTiQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Michal Mocny <mmocny@chromium.org>
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 2015 11:37:12 -0400
Message-ID: 
 <CAEeF2TeRnhvCPrUhcNOnMczn_hK-yfqFErKb_A9gy-SHvTdhCA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Scoped package names for npm?
To: dev <dev@cordova.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec51b9f3540b23405143dd3cc

--bcaec51b9f3540b23405143dd3cc
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

Okay fair enough.  I was hoping that with the lack of tools release to
stable, we can rename without affecting end users *right now*, but not
*soon*.

If we never want to use scopes, fair enough.  If we ever do, it will only
get more difficult.

-Michal

On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>
wrote:

> Given the state of some of our plugins, dropping the distinguishing
> namespace might be a good thing :P
>
> On Tue, Apr 21, 2015 at 8:45 AM, Horn, Julian C <julian.c.horn@intel.com>
> wrote:
>
> > I am also against another rename.  These name changes are very costly and
> > disruptive.
> >
> > There is code in several places that assumes that you can enumerate the
> > plugins selected by a project by enumerating the subdirectories of
> plugins.
> > If you allow a plugin root folder to be more than a single directory,
> > like "@cordova/plugin-device" then you break that code.
> >
> > Also, please remember that when you rename a plugins, you require people
> > to update every <dependency> tag that refers to that plugin, unless you
> > want to rely on the rename machinery forever.
> >
> >     Julian
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Steven Gill [mailto:stevengill97@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 9:42 PM
> > To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: Scoped package names for npm?
> >
> > I also like scoped packages but am against another rename. Haha.
> >
> > I know organizations are coming soon so we will be able to create the
> > Cordova organization and I believe scope packages that way. Add PMC
> members
> > to the organization to be able to publish instead of relying on a Cordova
> > npm user account.
> >
> > Lets wait and see how it goes.
> > On Apr 20, 2015 2:29 PM, "Jesse" <purplecabbage@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > re: the scoped package id, I like it, but not sure we want to change
> > > them again ... and how much of our existing world will it break. Can
> > > we install an '@' id currently on all platforms? It will result in a
> > > www/plugins/@cordova/plugin-device/ folder right now, won't it?
> > >
> > > re: other questions
> > > Personally, I would rather see only committers able to publish to our
> > > scope (assuming we go that way), just like we wanted to prevent non
> > > committers from using org.apache.cordova namespace.
> > >
> > > I considered 'cordova plugin add device' awhile back, I was going to
> > > do it directly in plugman, but I decided against it. Currently it
> > > would mean a 3rd attempt to find the plugin over http; 1) cpr, 2) npm,
> > > 3)munge name and go back to npm By this time, I think I would just ask
> > > the user what they really want.
> > > We could also do this via cordova-registry-mapper aliases.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > @purplecabbage
> > > risingj.com
> > >
> > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Parashuram N (MS OPEN TECH) <
> > > panarasi@microsoft.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Scopes are like namespaces. In the reverse domain name world,
> > > > org.apache.cordova was considered a namespace, right ?
> > > >
> > > > We did not want non core packages to publish to that namespace, so
> > > > does the same argument apply ?
> > > >
> > > > Alternatively, we can think of scope as packages that apply to a
> > > > particular environment - for example, all cordova packages would be
> > > > @cordova scope.
> > > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Michal Mocny [mailto:mmocny@google.com]
> > > > Sent: Monday, April 20, 2015 2:03 PM
> > > > To: dev
> > > > Subject: Re: Scoped package names for npm?
> > > >
> > > > Other questions to answer:
> > > > - Can 3rd-parties publish to this scope?
> > > >   - Do we want them to?
> > > > - Do we want to default to @cordova scope if none is provided, such
> > > > that you could do `cordova plugin add device`?
> > > >
> > > > -Michal
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, Apr 20, 2015 at 5:00 PM, Michal Mocny <mmocny@google.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > https://docs.npmjs.com/getting-started/scoped-packages
> > > > >
> > > > > Should we be @cordova/plugin-device instead of
> cordova-plugin-device?
> > > > >
> > > > > -Michal
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@cordova.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@cordova.apache.org
> >
> >
>

--bcaec51b9f3540b23405143dd3cc--