Joe - what non-polish items are left for Android? If you're feeling like you have too much to do this week, maybe you can delegate some tasks?
On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 3:27 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > I think what you're saying Andrew is true under the assumption that > plugins are ONLY consumed via the JS api. I'm not sure whether that > assumption is correct in all cases. > > In any case, clarifying this point (dependency "scope" we could call it, > perhaps?) seems like a good idea. > > On 7/15/13 12:14 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > > >-1 to shims. A plugin's java package name shouldn't be considered a part > >of > >its API. That's why there is a mapping in the config.xml. > > > >Shouldn't have to change any require() statements, or any JS at all. Those > >use plugin IDs, not java namespaces. > > > >Replace-all on the package statement at the top of the file, and change > >the > >reference in plugin.xml. I'd put this change in the "polish" category. > >That's what we should be doing now, no? > > > > > > > > > >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> +1 wait until 3.1. > >> > >> +1 add shims for less breakage > >> > >> Also worth pointing out that we'll need to add this to the deprecation > >> list on the wiki > >> > >> On 7/15/13 11:30 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> > >>wrote: > >> > >> >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>. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> > >
