incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From gtan...@gmail.com
Subject Re: Work Items for 1.5.0 - unified JS
Date Thu, 09 Feb 2012 18:45:15 GMT
I am setting up a windows dev environment.

I was a c# dev in a past life so I can see if I can step up on wp7 too.


Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry

-----Original Message-----
From: Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:35:15 
To: <callback-dev@incubator.apache.org>
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Work Items for 1.5.0 - unified JS

Re: shipping date.
I can say with almost absolute uncertainty that I alone will not get this
into WP7 for 1.5 release at the end of the month.

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Patrick Mueller <pmuellr@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:07, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
>
> > Three parts to this email. First:
> >
> > >[ Whole bunch of discussion]
> > >
> > >Perhaps it's time to define "AMD-lite" runtime somewhere?
> >
> > ^^ Pretty much.
> >
> > In my mind the simplest way to distill the discussion down is: do we want
> > to employ almond or some other AMD+CJS-compliant loaders, and make it
> > obvious to users that this comes with cordova, or roll our amdlite or smd
> > or whatever you want to call it, a cut-down version tailored for our
> > needs, and hide the fact we use it (closure that stuff up)?
> >
>
> If we closure it up, we don't need to say anything about AMD/AMD-lite/SMD.
>  If we have a version that we don't closure up, we do neede to talk about
> the AMD-ish API.  Easiest path is to closure it up, I guess.  I might press
> for an option on the build script, which we wouldn't use for the production
> cordova.js, to allow for other options:
>
> - don't closure it up
> - don't closure it up, and don't prepend our AMD-ish runtime, allowing
> someone else to prepend theirs (eg, require.js, Dojo, etc)
>
>
> > Second:
> >
> > One thing Mike and I chatted about today was the various platform
> > definition files ... It used a
> > JSON convention that currently is something like:
> >
> > [[icky crap elided]]
> >
> > ... One convention that could be employed is
> > having a string value instead of an object if it's a module path alone
> (no
> > children). Mike took it a different route and was thinking of something
> > string-based like:
> >
> > {
> >  "window.PhoneGap":"lib/phonegap",
> >  "window.PhoneGap.exec":"lib/phonegap/exec"
> > }
> >
>
> This was the sort of thing I was thinking about.  Rather than object
> structures, we can use strings with path structures ("." or "/" or whatever
> delimited).
>
>
> > Third:
> >
> > I really want to ship cordova-js for 1.5. There is a lot that can be
> > improved, but I'm hoping that improvements can be slowly introduced over
> > the next few releases. I am hoping that none of the issues that you
> > brought up, Pat, are "show-stoppers".
> >
>
> +1 on shipping a "built from modules" cordova.js for 1.5.  Anyway we can do
> that.  It's a step in the right direction.  Some implementation choices
> imply (in my mind) show-stoppers, like shipping almond 0.3 - so we don't
> use those implementation choices.
>
> --
> Patrick Mueller
> http://muellerware.org
>

Mime
View raw message