Very cool idea, Joe! Hopefully we will get a good response/sample size with no failures.
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 7:18 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > OK, I published a test app on Google Play. I'll post the link once it > actually shows up. I want people to download and run it on their Android > 2.3 devices to see if we can find any that crash! If so, it'll be recorded > in the Error Report. That way we can finally know is this is a real bug or > something that only exists in the Emulator. > > I'll throw up the code on a repo somewhere as well. I made sure to use > zero permissions so that it's clear what the app is. (I bet it gets really > crap ratings!). > > Joe > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:46 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > +1 science > > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 4:33 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 2:01 PM, Bryce Curtis <[email protected] > > >wrote: > > > > > >> Yes, I meant providing your own classes that inherit from our > > >> CordovaChrome/WebView classes. > > >> > > >> From what I've observed recently, addJavascriptInterface is still > > broken in > > >> the emulator and on some (maybe small subset) of real phones. > > >> > > > > > > I just tested it on the emulator. However, I don't think this is an > > issue > > > on real phones. When they wrote the switch, it was meant to allow > > Android > > > 2.3 to run on crap like the Quench. So far, I have never seen a phone > > that > > > has less than 256 MB of RAM produced, not even the HTC Wildfire (and > that > > > phone sucked!). I honestly don't think that there's a single Android > 2.3 > > > phone that has this bug. > > > > > > I think I'm going to release an application to prove this point. FOR > > > SCIENCE! > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > >> On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 1:53 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> > wrote: > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 9:09 PM, Bryce Curtis < > [email protected] > > >> > >wrote: > > >> > > > >> > > I really haven't had time to look at this in detail, but agree > that > > >> > > anything related to the webview should be in CordovaWebView. As > Fil > > >> > > mentioned, that includes the history, plugin manager, > whitelisting, > > & > > >> > > authentication + callback server. > > >> > > > > >> > > I assume that overriding chrome/view clients so the user can > specify > > >> > their > > >> > > own will still work. > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > What do you mean overriding Chrome/View clients? You can use your > own > > >> > classes if they inherit from the CordovaChrome class or > CordovaWebView > > >> > class, but if you just cram a vanilla WebViewClient or > > WebChromeClient, > > >> > Cordova won't work at all. This has nothing to do with > > CordovaWebView, > > >> but > > >> > instead is a consequence of the prompt hack that acts as our current > > >> > bridge. If we want to make it so that we're not dependent on the > > >> > ChromeClient, we should probably bring back addJavascriptInterface > and > > >> put > > >> > it in the view itself. > > >> > > > >> > BTW: Does the emulator still break when we do this on Android 2.3? > I > > >> think > > >> > I'll have to look into that. > > >> > > > >> > Joe > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Wed, Mar 28, 2012 at 6:17 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > >> > > > Sorry for late reply Joe! > > >> > > > > > >> > > > Looks great! As for outstanding issues as per your wiki article > > [1], > > >> I > > >> > > > would say move everything WebView related, as well as > > >> Cordova-specific > > >> > > > such as the plugin manager, into CordovaWebView.java. My > thinking > > >> here > > >> > is > > >> > > > that, none of scaffolding necessary to enable device APIs in the > > web > > >> > view > > >> > > > should be a burden on the user - the CordovaWebView class should > > >> handle > > >> > > > all of that. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > It separates the cordova-y bits as something the WEbView needs > to > > >> > manage > > >> > > > on its own, as well, and cleans up the final Activity-extending > > class > > >> > to > > >> > > > be simpler. Our end users should not have to worry about that > > stuff, > > >> > nor > > >> > > > do they need to see it in their own activities, or the generated > > >> > > > activities the baseline tooling within cordova-android provides. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > IMO: history, plugin manager, whitelisting, authentication, > should > > >> all > > >> > be > > >> > > > handled by CordovaWebView. > > >> > > > > > >> > > > [1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CordovaWebView > > >> > > > > > >> > > > On 3/28/12 4:06 PM, "Joe Bowser" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> > > > > > >> > > > >BUMP! Are we all on board with doing this? > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >Joe > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >On Tue, Mar 27, 2012 at 1:15 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected] > > > > >> > wrote: > > >> > > > > > > >> > > > >> Hey > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> I've been working on the CordovaWebView branch, and I think > we > > >> need > > >> > to > > >> > > > >> discuss where to put the CallbackServer and PluginManager in > > the > > >> new > > >> > > > >> implementation. I'm OK with it being in the view, but I did > > have > > >> it > > >> > > in > > >> > > > >>the > > >> > > > >> Client before, and I'm wondering what people's thoughts are > on > > >> that. > > >> > > > >>Also, > > >> > > > >> since these are core pieces of Cordova on Android, this may > > break > > >> > the > > >> > > > >> branch, which is fine, but it'd be good if more people looked > > at > > >> > this > > >> > > > >> branch, and discussed how this should work. > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > > https://git-wip-us.apache.org/repos/asf?p=incubator-cordova-android.git;a > > >> > > > >>=shortlog;h=refs/heads/CordovaWebView > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/CordovaWebView > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > >> Joe > > >> > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >
