I'm far more in favor of shims that barf deprecation notices than maintaining two branches.
Bryce/Patrick: I'll kick up a separate thread about roadmapping plugin stuff. On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:31 AM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > I haven't done any JavaScript shims but I've eased the pain for users > needing to use plugins by adding compatibility headers for all the > PhoneGap/Cordova versions out there (0.96 to 1.5.0). See my plugin in > this issue and its README: > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-330 > > These compat. headers I include in CordovaLib but is so far > undocumented. What the procedure is, you would write a plugin meant > for 1.6.0 (ie the latest version), and for older version support, a > dev would included the appropriate compatibility headers. > > It's working great so far for the CDVLocalStorage plugin - from the > same plugin code base (one .m and .h) through the compat. headers, > everything just works with older versions as well. I assume we can do > something similar for JavaScript as well (shims). > > Shaz > > On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 11:15 AM, Bryce Curtis <[email protected]> wrote: >> I agree that there's no way to know what plugins will look like in 2.x. >> Until then, I strongly believe we need to maintain the same (undocumented) >> API that plugins currently rely upon, with the goal that 3rd party plugins >> won't need to be updated again until 2.x - They already took a hit with >> renaming in 1.5. >> >> Regarding the plugin APIs (JS & native), we can't identify with certainty >> which ones will be deprecated until we are further along with the 2.x >> plugin architecture, so we shouldn't confuse users until details are worked >> out and prototypes running. Regarding API stability, while we have >> discussed deprecating methods like addConstructor, window.plugins, etc., >> the fact that they have remained consistent for many releases (well over a >> year or 2) has led to their wide use. >> >> After 1.6.0 release, we should schedule a plugin meeting to go over the >> priorities, what's been done to date, and where it's going. >> >> On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 1:05 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Thanks Brian, I was just going to respond saying the same thing but you >>> beat me to it! >>> >>> >What I'm trying to say is that I'm not at all inclined to +1/-1 until >>> >we have agreed on the particulars of the change we seek. >>> >>> ^^ The above is the underlying issue. I suggest we do that as a first step. >>> >>> The referenced bug in this thread is just a small part of the overall >>> work. Side note: deprecating + removing the "PhoneGap" JS global is not >>> necessarily for plugins, it's a part of the Apache rename. The only >>> changing part of the bug is removal of window.plugins. I prototyped a >>> deprecation approach in a branch here (diff view): >>> https://github.com/filmaj/incubator-cordova-js/compare/masterŠdeprecation >>> >>> Re: addResource/hasResource. These do not exist in cordova-js right now. >>> They are effectively gone. They were only there for BB + Android anyways. >>> I had one dude on IRC complain that we removed that in 1.5.0 without first >>> deprecating. No huge outcry. Not saying that the fact we just axed it is >>> good - it wasn't. We should have deprecated first, no doubt. My point >>> about these two specific methods is, it already happened last release, so >>> it is a moot point to discuss. >>> >>> Additionally we have had some work done to try to prototype what a final >>> plugins-based approach to app development would look like, specifically >>> Andrew Lunny's "pluginstall" work (which I believe started from a >>> thread/discussion that happened on the list between Andrew and Pat). Here: >>> https://github.com/alunny/pluginstall >>> >>> Andrew is most of the way there in terms of defining an XML file >>> describing the integration of native source for a plugin, see: >>> https://github.com/alunny/pluginstall/blob/master/test/plugin/plugin.xml >>> >>> The native plugin architecture has been around for a while. It is stable. >>> Not much needs to be done there. >>> >>> The biggest question in my mind is how we want to handle the JavaScript. >>> With cordova-js already implementing a basic module system with a hard API >>> for the exec() function, we're actually not too far away. >>> >>> We should keep going in enumerating all these things that make up the >>> plugin goal in this thread and drop whatever else comes up into a wiki >>> page. >>> >>> It seems like it is a "safer" idea to slate all the plugin changes / API >>> removals for 2.0. That being said, can we agree to drop deprecation >>> notices into the agreed-upon APIs that will be axed leading up to 2.0? >>> >>> > I think we >>> >can agree on the spirit of the focus of the work being a world of >>> >plugins and tooling for automation. We haven't added much outside of >>> >battery (and a new platform). >>> > >>> >1. The plugin architecture remains completely undocumented. >>> >2. We do not support 3rd party plugins. >>> >3. There is no automation or tooling. >>> > >>> >Are plugins from an API standpoint stable today? (I'm guessing not >>> >when I think of things like addConstructor.) >>> > >>> >If they aren't stable, undocumented, unsupported by our effort, and a >>> >work in progress for tooling: why are we concerned with breaking them? >>> > >>> >(Take all above with grain of salt, I think having a 2.x branch a good >>> >idea, but will slow us down for no direct benefit to Cordova that I >>> >can currently see.) >>> >>>
