cordova-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Joe Bowser <>
Subject Re: [Android] 5.0.x release branch?
Date Tue, 22 Sep 2015 01:32:11 GMT
On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:43 PM Nikhil Khandelwal <>

> Can you explain why latest plugins will not be compatible with older
> versions of Cordova?

They won't be compatible because Cordova-Android compiles against API 22,
and these plugins will require API 23 so that they can detect permissions
and support Marshmellow.

> Can this be avoided by any means?

Only with a lot of Java reflection, and I'd rather not subject plugin
developers to that, or try to hide it under the hood in some awful utility
class that everyone will want to see die.  I'm very much a fan of if
statements because they work, and they're easy to read and debug, unlike
when bad things happen to things you reflect into.  Plugins that require
API 23 will only work with Cordova-Android 5.0 and up.  This only impacts
five of our core plugins, but any plugin that requires permissions from the
Android Manifest will have to be updated.  If we can avoid using advanced
language tricks to make the APKs compatible, we should do that.

When you mean they would not be compatible - will it result in a build or
> runtime failure?
This will be a build failure, since API 22 does not have these permissions,
nor does it have the code required for API 23.

> For marshmallow, what is the guidance that we need to issue to the larger
> Cordova plugin ecosystem? Joe you are ahead of the curve here compared to
> most other plugin developers - a blot post explaining what are known
> gotchas would be great. I really hope we can use our Cordova blog to
> communicate these changes actively to the plugin ecosystem. This mailing
> list only gets 400+ subscribers.
There will be a blog post once 5.0 is released.  We're not forcing people
to upgrade to 5.0, and we will be supporting the 4.x branch for six
months.  This does mean we're stuck supporting 3.x, 4.x and 5.x for a brief
window, but I have no control over when Marshmallow is released, only
whether we want to support it or not.  I think we do, but I could be wrong.

At least this should be easier than the jump from 3.x to 4.x for most
people, but the alternative is that your plugin just doesn't work at all on
Marshmallow.  We need to at least give plugin developers this option, since
it'll roll out on all the Nexus devices in the next two weeks, and we'll
hear more about it.

> Can you re-base your cordova-android over the current master? It's hard to
> see a diff in the current form:
I had to do a merge commit to get this to happen (boo), but it should be
mostly cleaned up now.  It seems some style cleanup creeped into the most
recent changes, but this should be a bit more readable.

> -Nikhil
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joe Bowser []
> Sent: Monday, September 21, 2015 2:14 PM
> To: dev <>
> Subject: [Android] 5.0.x release branch?
> Hey
> In the next two weeks, Marshmallow will most likely getting released with
> the brand new Nexus 6P being released from Huawei.  Given that most of the
> Nexus devices will be getting this release, we should probably release the
> 5.0.x branch of Android soon, and get the new plugins updated.
> It should be noted that the latest plugins will not be compatible with
> older versions of Cordova, which is a big deal.  This is due to the use of
> various compatibility checks to make sure they support Marshmallow and
> older versions of Android.
> So, if everyone can look over the smores branches of my GitHub before I
> create the 5.0.x branch and pull the changes into it, that would be awesome.
> Work on audio is still outstanding, BUT for some reason Audio broke
> recently on both Lollipop and Marshmallow.  I didn't test it out on KitKat
> or Jellybean yet, but I'm wondering whether we should keep maintaining this
> or support the standard HTML5 audio and deal with the asset issue somehow
> (which isn't straight forward).
> I hopefully want to get a 5.0.x branch happening this week if we can.
> What do people think?
> Joe

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