incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Filip Maj <...@adobe.com>
Subject Re: Work Items for 1.5.0 - unified JS
Date Thu, 09 Feb 2012 19:42:10 GMT
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