The reason things broke back then was we didn't leave in shims to point anyone compiling against com.phonegap.api to org.apache.cordova.api. That was quickly corrected.
I agree with the package name change but with 3.0 shipping this week(?). It should probably wait until the next version. Simon Mac Donald http://hi.im/simonmacdonald On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > No. You are proposing an API change. A package is most certainly a > part of the API! When we moved from `com.phonegap` to `org.apache` > there was a huge outcry b/c it broke all existing community plugins. > > I'm completely open to changing stuff for 3.0 but, again, what > specifically are you proposing we change? > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I agree. The only downside I see is that it will be hard to dissociate > core > > plugins from other but I don't think it's really that important. Also > > because it's not a giant change it could happen for 3.0. > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Max Woghiren <m...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > >> I'm not proposing any API changes in this email; example (1) does > mention > >> the relocation of FileHelper.java, but that's more to illustrate the > >> benefits of repackaging the plugins. > >> > >> I would think the plugin package change should happen *for* 3.0, before > >> people actually start using the plugins all bundled in one package. > It's > >> not a giant change. > >> > >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> > >> > I think all of this makes good sense but will have to land sometime > >> > post 3.0 as that we're pretty much in the final stretch now anyhow. > >> > Which APIs are you specifically proposing we change? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Max Woghiren <m...@chromium.org> > wrote: > >> > > On Android, all Cordova plugins are in the package > >> > org.apache.cordova.core. > >> > > It makes sense to put each plugin into its own package. Aside from > >> > 3.0's > >> > > conceptual shift into "plugins as completely individual entities" > and > >> the > >> > > fact that plugins aren't really "core", here's some rationale: > >> > > > >> > > 1. If two plugins have a file with the same name, we'll avoid > >> > > collisions. For instance, core Cordova has FileHelper.java. > This > >> is > >> > the > >> > > wrong place for it in 3.0 and we'd like to move it to the plugins > >> > that use > >> > > it (removing unused methods in each plugin's version). However, > >> this > >> > will > >> > > lead to a collision in apps that use two of these plugins, since > >> > they'll > >> > > both be in the same package. > >> > > 2. All plugin files will be separated into their packages in your > >> IDE. > >> > > This makes working on an individual plugin easier—you can see > the > >> > > associated files at a glance. If I'm working on a plugin with > >> > multiple > >> > > files, I shouldn't have to hunt for related files to ensure I'm > not > >> > missing > >> > > anything. > >> > > 3. Since our plugins will be used as starting points for > third-party > >> > > plugins, we won't accidentally encourage plugin developers to use > >> the > >> > same > >> > > namespace. > >> > > > >> > > I would propose something like > org.apache.cordova.plugin.<plugin_name>. > >> > > >> >
