I'm cool w/ window.cordova.plugins (or is it window.Cordova.plugins?) Don't think we should prescribe anything for 3rd party plugins but encourage namespaced behavior as jesse suggests.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with window.plugins for everything that is not a polyfill. > > > On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Agree with everything Jesse said. cordova.plugins could be considered >> "safe", but not required. It's just JavaScript! >> >> On 2/6/13 6:27 PM, "Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >> I would prefer cordova.plugins instead of directly on cordova. >> >+1 >> > >> >I agree, and like having core plugins live under cordova.plugins.*, but I >> >don't think this should be a requirement of other plugins. >> > >> >For example: com.dropbox.session.startAuthentication(this); >> >makes sense to me >> > >> >In the end, anyone can come along and make their own aliases anyway ... >> >it's only js >> > >> >var dBox = com.dropbox; >> > >> >PS: if devs are 'discovering' plugins in web inspector, then they already >> >have installed them in their app ... ? And this assumes that web-inspector >> >is available on the platform in question. >> > >> > >> >On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> >> I agree with Michal that hanging things off the cordova object can get >> >> pretty unmanageable after a while, and having it namespaced under >> >> cordova.plugins or something similar would be better. >> >> >> >> InAppBrowser is a weird one since window.open will work in browsers, but >> >> not everything it supports is supported in browsers (addEventListener, >> >>etc) >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> >> >>wrote: >> >> >> >> > I like the proposal, and do think our extensions should be namespaced. >> >> > However, your one example of InAppBrowser is debatable if it is a >> >> polyfill >> >> > or extension, and has good arguments for either side. So, perhaps we >> >>can >> >> > leave that example (or any other specific plugin) aside, and focus on >> >>the >> >> > overall proposal. >> >> > >> >> > I would prefer cordova.plugins instead of directly on cordova. >> >> > >> >> > I also think it would be nice for devs to discover cordova extensions >> >>in >> >> > web inspector by just typing cordova.plugins. and see whats available. >> >> > >> >> > -Michal >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > > Some of our APIs are meant to be polyfills, and some of them are >> >>not. >> >> > > >> >> > > It's great to expose the polyfill-type ones using the >> >>standards-based >> >> > > symbols. E.g. FileEntry, requestFileSystem. >> >> > > >> >> > > For the custom ones though, I think it's important for devs to >> >>realize >> >> > that >> >> > > the APIs they are using are custom to Cordova, and will never work >> >>in >> >> > other >> >> > > browsers. >> >> > > >> >> > > Examples: >> >> > > Camera: window.Camera >> >> > > InAppBrowser: window.open() >> >> > > globalization: navigator.globalization >> >> > > >> >> > > There's been some talk about deprecating the window.plugins >> >>namespace. >> >> > But >> >> > > why? I think it would be clearer if these apis were: >> >> > > Camera: plugins.camera >> >> > > InAppBrowser: plugins.inappbrowser.open >> >> > > globalization: plugins.globalization >> >> > > >> >> > > This makes it much more clear that the APIs are not browser-based >> >>ones, >> >> > but >> >> > > Cordova-specific. >> >> > > >> >> > > If the rational to get rid of the plugins is to save on a global >> >> symbol, >> >> > > how about using cordova as the namespace? >> >> > > >> >> > > cordova.camera.getPicture() >> >> > > cordova.inappbrowser.open() >> >> > > corodva.globalization.getLocale() >> >> > > >> >> > > aka: >> >> > > cordova.$PLUGIN_NAME.exports >> >> > > >> >> > > Thoughts? >> >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> > >> > >> >-- >> >@purplecabbage >> >risingj.com >> >>
