incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Viras <vi...@users.sourceforge.net>
Subject Re: Unified phonegap javascript layer incorperating modules / plugins
Date Fri, 25 Nov 2011 06:56:20 GMT
Just as a side note: async loading of externally libraries shouldn't be
a top target, especially as this is for example not allowed on iOS and I
guess it isn't on other platforms as well.

PhoneGap/Callback/Cordova is mainly targeting embedded devices in a
closed execution environment - this is not a webpage per se. I would
just like to keep that in mind when doing design decisions.
(that's just my opinion, please correct me if I'm wrong with that).

Best,
Wolfgang

Am 24.11.2011 19:46, schrieb Filip Maj:
> Bit late but better than never...
> 
> PhoneGap doesn't *need* modules but it *should* have them.
> 
> +1 for AMD from me.
> 
> As Laurent said, we need to consider the end-user. Overhead would be.
> Compilation step is nice for phonegap.js but you cannot expect all scripts
> will be prepackaged. Consider the case where a PG app async loads
> libraries externally. AMD should be supported.
> 
> Another argument in this thread was readability (see Gord's prototype for
> the readability; Brian you agree too that Gord's demo was pretty). Don't
> buy that commonJS is "nicer" than AMD - agree with Andrew that that is a
> question of style. Personally I think AMD is nicer.
> 
> 
> On 11-11-20 7:19 PM, "Laurent Hasson" <lhasson@rim.com> wrote:
> 
>> Not about advocacy? I still do innerHTML and table layouts! :) It's about
>> how to structure the project moving forwards... and I always took this
>> conversation to be about (1) how to we write the framework, and (2) how
>> do developers use it.
>>        - Are we expecting third-party modules to be developed in the
>> wild?
>>        - If I write an app and need (a), (b) and (c), but not (d), (e),
>> and (f), how do I specify that? A build system is how it's done and
>> having modules clearly defined and dependencies managed helps doing that.
>>
>> In WebWorks,  and Tim can correct me, there are potentially hundreds of
>> modules. To just say it's all one big file with everything in it is
>> something I don't understand. The fact that it's all packaged and we
>> don't incur bandwidth and requests to pull it all in doesn't mean it
>> doesn't take time to load in the browser, parse and so on. Putting it all
>> on the shoulders of a developer to  bring it all in themselves is also
>> problematic.
>>
>> Maybe I am missing something here, but the way I read your messages is:
>> phonegap.js is fine as it is, and we don't use any modules, so why start
>> now? If we believe that we can control it, then maybe that's a fine
>> position. Otherwise, if it's going to grow, and if third-parties are able
>> to extend it (i.e., add new modules), and developers are going to find
>> themselves never needing the entire thing by far, then how do we manage
>> it?
>>
>> And maybe this is not a 1.x thing, maybe we'll re-architect again in 2.0
>> if the need arises? Advocacy aside, I don't often come across projects
>> that don't need to end there, or suffer because they did this sooner
>> rather than later. Just my $.02.
>>
>>
>> Thank you
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> - LDH (Laurent Hasson)                         -
>> - Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform  -
>> - Research In Motion                           -
>> - Email: lhasson@rim.com                       -
>> - Mobile: 646-460-7066                         -
>> ------------------------------------------------
>> "Ha ha ha... He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!" - Erwin
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: brian.leroux@gmail.com [mailto:brian.leroux@gmail.com] On Behalf Of
>> Brian LeRoux
>> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 9:22 PM
>> To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
>> Subject: Re: Unified phonegap javascript layer incorperating modules /
>> plugins
>>
>> With respect Laurent, lets keep the conversation around our project
>> goals and away from library / pattern advocacy for just the moment. I
>> don't think we are really debating this correctly (yet) since we
>> aren't looking at the long view. Ultimately we don't even need a
>> module system for the single file that is phonegap.js which is in use
>> today and, indeed, we don't use one or have one. All this discussion
>> has been framed, I think, around authoring apps with phonegap rather
>> than how to author phonegap javascript itself.
>>
>> The key questions we need to answer to guide this effort:
>>
>> Are we looking to enforce a particular module semantics on 3rd party
>> plugin authors? (Do we have to?) Are plugins all compiled into the
>> phonegap.js file or are we going to see something like this:
>>
>> <script src="phonegap-exec.js"></script>
>> <script src="phonegap-acceleromter.js"></script>
>>
>> ???
>>
>> (And leave module loading as an exercise to the end developer...?)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:38 PM, Laurent Hasson <lhasson@rim.com> wrote:
>>> Things as ambitious as PhoneGap always grow in complexity faster and
>>> bigger than people think. I have been in way too many projects in the
>>> past where "anything goes" was the order of the day in terms of macro
>>> structure, and then it became deeply regretted quickly. I for one don't
>>> see a downside to using something like AMD. And if we do want to get
>>> into a much more "micro-kernel" type approach for PhoneGap as a
>>> platform, then we'll need something.
>>>
>>> So I would put the question differently: are people so offended by the
>>> idea of something AMD-like? What's the downside? Verbosity? Overhead?
>>> Really? :) It enables tooling, dependency management, code structuring,
>>> plugins etc... I don't see the downside.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thank you
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> - LDH (Laurent Hasson)                         -
>>> - Technical Director, BlackBerry Web Platform  -
>>> - Research In Motion                           -
>>> - Email: lhasson@rim.com                       -
>>> - Mobile: 646-460-7066                         -
>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>> "Ha ha ha... He doesn't know how to use the three seashells!" - Erwin
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: brian.leroux@gmail.com [mailto:brian.leroux@gmail.com] On Behalf
>>> Of Brian LeRoux
>>> Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2011 3:25 PM
>>> To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
>>> Subject: Re: Unified phonegap javascript layer incorperating modules /
>>> plugins
>>>
>>> Would like to draw attention back to the primary goal here: a single
>>> file phonegap.js that works on all the target platforms:
>>>
>>> - ios
>>> - android
>>> - blackberry
>>> - wp7
>>> - bada
>>> - qt
>>> - browser <--- never been an explicit goal, but seems consensus here
>>> is that it should be given its a common practice during app dev
>>>
>>> Right now our module system is classic js: we have no module loader.
>>> =P We just concat our JS, always have, and leave the loading of that
>>> file as an exercise for the app developer using phonegap (and it
>>> should stay that way).
>>>
>>> Our secondary goal w/ this effort was to determine how we could move
>>> code out of the phonegap core and into atomic plugins. With that mind,
>>> a module system is could make things whole lot nicer.
>>>
>>> Do have to use a module system when we 'pluginize'? No.
>>>
>>> Here's the big question: *should* authors of plugins be forced into a
>>> module system? I'm thinking the answer here would be no too ---- but
>>> I'd love to hear everyones thoughts on that.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 12:42 PM, Patrick Mueller <pmuellr@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Nov 19, 2011 at 14:21, Andrew Lunny <alunny@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> For PhoneGap.js, we're dealing with a finite number of modules -
>>>>> around
>>>>> twenty I'd guess, plus one for each plugin. Typically, each module
>>>>> only
>>>>> depends on phonegap/base - it's very unlikely that, say, the Camera
>>>>> API
>>>>> would depend on the Accelerometer, although there may be cases of
>>>>> cross
>>>>> dependencies.
>>>>
>>>> I take it you aren't including phonegap-plugins in that list (of 20).
>>>> Shouldn't they be?
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>>> non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>>> the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>>> transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>>> this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>>> reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>>> authorized and may be unlawful.
>>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>> information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>> solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>> non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>> the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>> transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>> this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>> reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>> authorized and may be unlawful.
> 
> 

-- 
GOFG - Get On Fat Guy
http://www.gofg.at/ - powered by PhoneGap

Mime
View raw message