Re: shipping date. I can say with almost absolute uncertainty that I alone will not get this into WP7 for 1.5 release at the end of the month.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 9:48 AM, Patrick Mueller <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 12:07, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Three parts to this email. First: > > > > >[ Whole bunch of discussion] > > > > > >Perhaps it's time to define "AMD-lite" runtime somewhere? > > > > ^^ Pretty much. > > > > In my mind the simplest way to distill the discussion down is: do we want > > to employ almond or some other AMD+CJS-compliant loaders, and make it > > obvious to users that this comes with cordova, or roll our amdlite or smd > > or whatever you want to call it, a cut-down version tailored for our > > needs, and hide the fact we use it (closure that stuff up)? > > > > If we closure it up, we don't need to say anything about AMD/AMD-lite/SMD. > If we have a version that we don't closure up, we do neede to talk about > the AMD-ish API. Easiest path is to closure it up, I guess. I might press > for an option on the build script, which we wouldn't use for the production > cordova.js, to allow for other options: > > - don't closure it up > - don't closure it up, and don't prepend our AMD-ish runtime, allowing > someone else to prepend theirs (eg, require.js, Dojo, etc) > > > > Second: > > > > One thing Mike and I chatted about today was the various platform > > definition files ... It used a > > JSON convention that currently is something like: > > > > [[icky crap elided]] > > > > ... One convention that could be employed is > > having a string value instead of an object if it's a module path alone > (no > > children). Mike took it a different route and was thinking of something > > string-based like: > > > > { > > "window.PhoneGap":"lib/phonegap", > > "window.PhoneGap.exec":"lib/phonegap/exec" > > } > > > > This was the sort of thing I was thinking about. Rather than object > structures, we can use strings with path structures ("." or "/" or whatever > delimited). > > > > Third: > > > > I really want to ship cordova-js for 1.5. There is a lot that can be > > improved, but I'm hoping that improvements can be slowly introduced over > > the next few releases. I am hoping that none of the issues that you > > brought up, Pat, are "show-stoppers". > > > > +1 on shipping a "built from modules" cordova.js for 1.5. Anyway we can do > that. It's a step in the right direction. Some implementation choices > imply (in my mind) show-stoppers, like shipping almond 0.3 - so we don't > use those implementation choices. > > -- > Patrick Mueller > http://muellerware.org >
