|Brian LeRoux||Feb 4, 2013 2:10 pm|
|Anis KADRI||Feb 4, 2013 2:46 pm|
|Andrew Grieve||Feb 5, 2013 10:38 am|
|Brian LeRoux||Feb 5, 2013 2:13 pm|
|Becky Gibson||Feb 6, 2013 9:00 am|
|Filip Maj||Feb 6, 2013 10:18 am|
|Brian LeRoux||Feb 6, 2013 10:41 am|
|Andrew Grieve||Feb 6, 2013 10:48 am|
|Andrew Grieve||Feb 6, 2013 11:23 am|
|Brian LeRoux||Feb 6, 2013 11:41 am|
|Becky Gibson||Feb 6, 2013 12:12 pm|
|Andrew Grieve||Feb 7, 2013 7:36 am|
|Andrew Grieve||Feb 7, 2013 7:44 am|
|Filip Maj||Feb 7, 2013 12:44 pm|
|Brian LeRoux||Feb 7, 2013 11:40 pm|
|Anis KADRI||Feb 8, 2013 10:38 am|
|Brian LeRoux||Feb 9, 2013 4:43 am|
|Subject:||Re: Creating repos for core plugins|
|From:||Becky Gibson (gibs...@gmail.com)|
|Date:||Feb 6, 2013 9:00:23 am|
Yes, I shouldn't have confused the issue about audio and media! I guess I just get annoyed when I go to mobile spec and it is labelled as "audio" :-) We can leave it as cordova-plugin-media so it matches the JS api name. Although, I think we are creating the same type of confusion if we rename capture to media-capture but I don't have a strong opinion on that. Plus, I see we are doing that for acceleration and compass as well. I guess now is as good a time as any to match the W3C names!
Also, where is FileTransfer?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote:
Great! I like the spec-based names. I think I have the opposite thought as Becky. Our current media plugin doesn't follow the WebAudio spec at all. How about we call it cordova-media for now since that's what it's called in our docs, and then if we ever implement WebAudio, then we'll have the name available for that. Maybe we should even put it the spec-less category (unless there's some older spec that it was based off of?)
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
Just kicked up a quick wiki page to help vett this. I'm thinking we try to stay as close to the spec names as possible.
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Becky Gibson <gibs...@gmail.com> wrote:
My only comment would be about media. Currently it just supports audio so perhaps codova-plugin-audio makes more sense and we can leave media open for the rewrite. Although, I do realize the api is labelled "media" so perhaps it would be too confusing to change the repo name. Just a thought.....
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote:
Before I go ahead with this, let's agree upon the repo names / which plugins to include.
Here's the proposed list:
Repos to create:
cordova-plugin-accelerometer cordova-plugin-battery cordova-plugin-camera cordova-plugin-capture cordova-plugin-compass cordova-plugin-contacts cordova-plugin-device cordova-plugin-file cordova-plugin-geolocation cordova-plugin-globalization cordova-plugin-logger cordova-plugin-media cordova-plugin-networkstatus cordova-plugin-notification cordova-plugin-splashscreen cordova-plugin-inappbrowser
Note that I have device and network status in this list. Plugins that delay ondeviceready just add themselves to channel.deviceReadyChannelsArray.
Plugins *not* getting their own Repo:
blackberry/plugin/java/app android/plugin/android/app android/plugin/android/storage errgen/plugin/errgen ios/plugin/ios/console (seems like this should be merged into the logger plugin) windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/DOMStorage windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/XHRPatch windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/console iOS's CDVLocalStorage.m
On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote:
Great! Sounds like an agreement :). I'll file an INFRA to get them created.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1 on separate repos. It's the sane choice.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jesse <purp...@gmail.com> wrote:
+1, I agree on the separate repositories. I still contend that nothing should need to be 'built' and there
NO dependencies on the plugins from cordova-js, ( aside from device.js + network.js which are both required pre device ready, and I think should remain in the cordova-js repo )
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Anis KADRI <anis...@gmail.com
+1 for separate repositories. Should take a bit longer than
package a release but not too long especially if the repos are
a local source (ie no network overhead). I'd be ok to ship a set of default plugins and give the ability
to build their 'own' Cordova.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
I'm in favor of discreet plugin repos. It shouldn't effect a release if we automate install/remove and add to the Coho tool... though perhaps this is a naive assumption.
On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Andrew Grieve <
Thought it'd be worth having a discussion around whether we
repo for each core plugin or not.
As far as I can see, we can either have all core plugins in
have each in it's own and call them: cordova-plugin-file cordova-plugin-network cordova-plugin-media etc...
I think my preference would be to have them as their own
will be easier to add/remove lists of plugins to the "which
list. It will also let us version them separately (if we
The downside is that it may take longer to perform a
bundle the plugins with releases anyways though?
-- @purplecabbage risingj.com