Thanks Steven.
On Mon, Dec 15, 2014 at 12:15 AM, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > For the lazy: cordova_plugins.js discussion > https://issues.apache.org/jira/plugins/servlet/mobile#issue/CB-8153 > On Dec 14, 2014 6:58 PM, "Michal Mocny" <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > Lets discuss the cordova_plugins.js thing elsewhere, this thread has > forked > > a lot already. > > > > On Sun, Dec 14, 2014 at 6:22 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > This is the part that I like the most: > > > "and start > > > writing plugins as proper node modules. Maybe even push them to npm and > > > manage dependencies that way." > > > > > > Agree with having less XHR, and concatenate cordova + plugins. > > > Not in love with cordova_plugins.js to know what plugins are included > in > > > the app, would prefer to see a package.json with all software that was > > use > > > to build the app, and maybe one day could a be a real valid > pacakge.json > > > that can be use to pull down dependencies. > > > > > > The same way we depend on npm, elementree, and dozen more npm modules > > that > > > our platforms and cli depend on, we don't distribute browserfy will be > > just > > > another one. > > > One thing I will consider with browserfy if there is a any code coming > > from > > > browserfy like the bootstrap code that contains the require function, > > then > > > maybe only this code get's legally review as it going to be part of the > > App > > > that developer builds with cordova. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 5:34 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > > > > > > yeah we are *not* proposing to distribute browserify or its deps > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:38 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > What are we actually distributing? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 12:36:03 PM Andrew Grieve < > > agri...@chromium.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 1:51 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri Dec 12 2014 at 10:25:51 AM Andrew Grieve < > > > > agri...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not actually worried about my disk filling up. > Dependencies > > > > must > > > > > be > > > > > > > > vetted for appropriate licenses, so now there's more overhead > > > here. > > > > > If > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > need to make a change to the module system now we need to > poor > > > > > through > > > > > > > docs > > > > > > > > and make PRs instead of just editing our very small > code-base. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This mix of MIT and 3-Clause BSD looks compatible to me. It's > > > weaker > > > > > > than > > > > > > > Apache, but not incompatible. Do we really need to send this > to > > > > legal? > > > > > > > > https://github.com/substack/node-browserify/blob/master/LICENSE > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There are people who can argue your other points better, but > > saying > > > > > that > > > > > > > the license is the overhead when you can find it in the repo? > > I'm > > > > not > > > > > > sure > > > > > > > how we would have gotten this far if we had to check with legal > > for > > > > > every > > > > > > > single dependency. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I meant that it depends on a bunch of other modules. Run > > > > license-checker > > > > > on > > > > > > browserify and you get: http://pastebin.com/XDMCTRRb > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > Carlos Santana > > > <csantan...@gmail.com> > > > > > >
