incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Brian LeRoux...@brian.io>
Subject Re: Work Items for 1.5.0 - unified JS
Date Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:51:48 GMT
downloading windows 7 now... I haven't writ code for windows since 2000 was new!

*shudders*

On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 11:42 AM, Filip Maj <fil@adobe.com> wrote:
> I'll do the same and work on a patch. I'll post links to patch source so
> we can collaborate on getting this done, Jesse/Gord. I'll aim for next
> week, and Jesse we can sync up in person.
>
> On 12-02-09 7:45 PM, "gtanner@gmail.com" <gtanner@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>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