incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Piotr Walczyszyn <piotr.walczys...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Supporting multiple projects on iOS
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:44:59 GMT
As I suggested in the pull request comments, this would really make
sense to update bin/create script either by enhancing it with
additional argument to embed the CordovaLib with newly created
projects or even make this behavior a default one.

p.

2012/9/27 Andrew Grieve <agrieve@chromium.org>:
> Suppose you have 5 projects that depend on 2.1, and 3 that depend on 2.0.
>
> One big difference between the two options is that for the 2nd option,
> you'd have 8 copies of Cordova, whereas for the first option you'd have
> only two.
>
> I think getting the correct workflow set up with Xcode workspaces will be
> quite cumbersome though, and not something that will be easy for us to do
> with tooling. We'd pretty much have to rely on documentation to tell people
> how to drag multiple projects into their own workspace.
>
> I think maybe another key point is that CordovaLib is really small, and
> will get even smaller if/when we remove the core plugins from it. In this
> model, the majority of the code will be pluginstalled into users' projects
> anyways, so it won't be a bit deal to have a bunch of copies of CordovaLib
> around.
>
> The model that pwalczyszyn is using is to copy the CordovaLib directory
> into each project's directory, similar to how we have a "cordova" directory
> that we copy into it. Taken from his pull requests comments:
>
> MyProject
>> -- cordova
>> -- MyProject
>> ---- CordovaLib
>> ------ CordovaLib.xcodeproj
>> ---- Plugins
>> ---- Resources
>> ---- ....
>> -- MyProject.xcodeproj
>> -- www
>
>
> Having CordovaLib a sibling of Plugins does make sense in this model I
> think. Either that, or have it up one level.
>
>
> To implement this, we'll need to change our bin/create script to copy in
> the CordovaLib directory. Not too hard.
>
> For upgrades, how will we address this though? Just add documentation
> telling users to delete the old directory and copy over the new one? The
> steps would be:
> cp -r path/to/new/cordova/CordovaLib MyProject
> path/to/new/cordova/bin/update_cordova_subproject MyProject
> MyProject/CordovaLib
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Dave Johnson <dave.c.johnson@gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> +1
>>
>> On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Mike Reinstein wrote:
>>
>> > Agree on all points with Brian.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io<javascript:;>>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > > Global dependancies? It's a library, why would you not be dependent
>> on
>> > > it?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > We're talking about global deps vs local deps. Not whether or not
>> you'll
>> > > have a dependency!
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > Standardize on the apis and not the files.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Uh, ok sure, not sure I understand?
>> > >
>> > > It only takes a few weeks of ruby (and/or python) dev to see where
>> global
>> > > packages become ambushes for epic fail. Node learned from this and
>> > > explicitly created lexically scoped packages. Typically when you ship
>> > > projects you want to have the dependencies bundled to minimize issues.
>> > >
>> > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > Not to mention the extra complexity of #2, and multiple out of sync
>> > > > project issues.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I do not see where this creates complexity. It reduces it. I have a
>> > project
>> > > that I want up-do-date. It has a dependency on 2.1.0. I have another
>> > > project I do not want to update running 2.0.0: no problem. If I have a
>> > > global dependency: problem!
>> > >
>> > > The other issue here is the requirement of having your library
>> > > a separate concern for the end user project. When I want to build a
>> > project
>> > > from another repo it requires me to install the correct version of the
>> > > dependency. With option 2 the library is a part of the project and no
>> > > installer step is required. Again: reduced complexity.
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > I originally moved the codebase to a library and created the template
>> > > > over 2 years ago, so I may be blind to the benefits of #2, but to
me
>> > > > this makes our library become a boilerplate... am I wrong?
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > Do not see how this is related either.
>> > >
>> >
>>

Mime
View raw message