Brian, we're doing Android devs (potential plugin authors) a favor here, trust me.
2.0 is our chance to break interfaces. Also, +1 to Bryce's comment re: get this change in for 1.9, deprecate the .ctx member in 1.9 as well, and axe it in 2.0. On 6/18/12 12:15 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote: >I'm of the opinion that native impl should *not* abstract the >platforms at the plugin level. It breaks old plugins, which is fine, >but for what benefit? Conceptual purity at that level will make it >harder to recruit plugin authors from their respective navtive >platforms. > >On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Michael Brooks ><[email protected]> wrote: >> If we are planning to rename the Cordova interface object, then we >>should >> do it for each platform in a consistent manner. There should be a parent >> JIRA issue with sub-tasks for each Cordova platform. >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Yeh "ctx" implies Context, especially for Android peoples, so +1 to >>> renaming to something less Android-ey. >>> >>> On 6/18/12 11:45 AM, "Joe Bowser" <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> >Hey >>> > >>> >Since we're approaching 2.0 and since part of the goals of 2.0 is to >>> >improve the plugin architecture, I'm wondering if we should take the >>> >opportunity to give the CordovaInterface variable on Plugin.java a >>>name >>> >other than ctx, which on Android usually refers to a context. The >>>reason >>> >for this is the fact that there's a use case where the >>>CordovaInterface >>> >may >>> >not be a Context. I propose that we change the name to cordova. >>> > >>> >I'm not sure if this needs a JIRA ticket or not. >>> > >>> >Any thoughts? >>> > >>> >Joe >>> >>>
