New thread methinks. On 6/18/12 3:06 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote:
>ok, that makes sense! it isn't even a Context. ya, bad. kill. with. fire. > >(and a deprecation notice) > >maybe we leave it deprecated for a farther future date. I know it >doesn't conform to semantic versioning but I think it might be nicer >if all the plugins did work for 2.0 > >maybe, the policy should be not fixed to version number but rather a >rough date. if we deprecate something its gone in, lets arbitrarily >say, 6 months? > > >On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:55 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: >> Back when we first started working on plugins, a ctx was a context >>because >> that's what we needed. Along the way, when >> we removed PhoneGapActivity and changed it to a CordovaInterface for an >> earlier implementation of CordovaWebView, we changed ctx to be an >> Interface. The problem is that a CordovaInterface may not be an >>activity >> and this looks stupid: >> >> ctx.getContext() >> >> I tried in an earlier version of CordovaWebView to change this back to >> Context, but we decided that it should be an interface for some reason >> (although I don't remember the reason, something about breaking plugins >>I >> think), so since we can't make ctx a Context like what the convention >>is, >> we should conform to convention and call the CordovaInterface something >> descriptive like cordova since that will be less disruptive. >> >> So, yes, we've been kicking this can around the parking lot for a while. >> >> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 2:45 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> cool w/ that, and of course I trust you, but can you explain the >>> problem with ctx, a familiar convention since the earliest days of >>> phonegap/android, so I understand the benefit of the proposed >>> solution? >>> >>> (breaking plugins will cause some backlash and, as I mentioned, >>> creating a more abstract interface does increase ramp up for new >>> native devs) >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >>> > 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 >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> > >>>
