incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Simon MacDonald <>
Subject Re: endless refactoring of plugins until "Cordova 2.x"
Date Wed, 28 Mar 2012 18:52:52 GMT
I don't see it being a huge merge issue. The way I envision it is that
we stabilize the 1.X stream and continue to release every month but
it's only going to be bug fixes.

On the 2.0 stream, this is where we do the big architectural changes
without fear of inconveniencing our users. The unfortunately part is
that fixes in the 1.X stream will have to be ported to the 2.0 stream.

Simon Mac Donald

On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 2:44 PM, Brian LeRoux <> wrote:
> Lets face it: we're talking about renaming phonegap.js to cordova.js
> and com.phonegap to org.apache.cordova ...which frankly was only bad
> b/c we failed to document the change and give the community sufficient
> warning. Since our actual method signatures aren't really changing
> significantly maybe this will be easy.
> Before we put this to a vote, I'd like to hear a precise description
> of the methodology being proposed. Right now I envision 'huge merge
> rebase hell' but maybe I'm making a mountain of a molehill.
> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 11:26 AM, Simon MacDonald
> <> wrote:
>> I added those tests to catch previous bugs like Cordova vs cordova and
>> to catch any breakage to Plugins. Some recent changes made to common
>> JS would have broken all existing plugins for 1.6.0.
>> Simon Mac Donald
>> On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Filip Maj <> wrote:
>>> FYI one of Simon's latest commits to the mobile spec [1] added "platform
>>> tests" for testing things such as the existence of the PhoneGap global and
>>> other artifacts of the initial plugin work.
>>> It looks like we are already on the way to documenting/testing that stuff,
>>> so we are implicitly working towards a "document plugin mechanics" in 1.7
>>> and beyond.
>>> [1]
>>> a=commit;h=79a84e59383501f1cccb025e64e35e31d284aac4
>>> On 3/28/12 9:59 AM, "Patrick Mueller" <> wrote:
>>>>On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 12:22, Brian LeRoux <> wrote:
>>>>> What are we looking for as a resolution here? Commit that 1.7 we
>>>>> document the plugin api?
>>>>It's already defacto documented, in the code, and articles like Andy's.  I
>>>>don't see the need to document something that in theory has a short
>>>>My worry is that if want to continue to support folks who are living the
>>>>bleeding edge of using 3rd party plugins or writing their own, or even
>>>>reshipping the core runtime with tweaks, it's going to be hard to manage
>>>>THAT and moving to 2.x in the same code stream.
>>>>To me, separating the streams allows us to do 2.x work WITH NO REGARD TO
>>>>1.x COMPATIBILITY.  Which seems like a huge win.  The downside is rebasing
>>>>fixes for 1.x back into 2.x, but ... if the code is going to change so
>>>>dramatically, how much change is there going to be there?
>>>>Three words, and an explanatory movie: "total protonic reversal"
>>>>Another alternative is to just tell people, WHO ARE USING 3rd PARTY
>>>>PLUGINS: "look, we're doing breaking things is the 1.x stream, starting in
>>>>1.5; if you need stability, you probably don't want to take our monthly
>>>>releases".  It's hard to imagine how we realistically "document" this, and
>>>>will in the end just cause more questions.
>>>>Patrick Mueller

View raw message