incubator-callback-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Mike Reinstein <reinstein.m...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Supporting multiple projects on iOS
Date Thu, 27 Sep 2012 16:52:41 GMT
an upgrade script would be really helpful as well.

-Mike

On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Piotr Walczyszyn <
piotr.walczyszyn@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message