I'll do the same and work on a patch. I'll post links to patch source so we can collaborate on getting this done, Jesse/Gord. I'll aim for next week, and Jesse we can sync up in person.
On 12-02-09 7:45 PM, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: >I am setting up a windows dev environment. > >I was a c# dev in a past life so I can see if I can step up on wp7 too. > > >Sent on the TELUS Mobility network with BlackBerry > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jesse <[email protected]> >Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2012 10:35:15 >To: <[email protected]> >Reply-To: [email protected] >Subject: Re: Work Items for 1.5.0 - unified JS > >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 >> >
