+1 any docs / tutorials on writing plugins should be updated as necessary.
> Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2012 18:06:02 -0400 > Subject: Re: [Android] Plugin.ctx needs a rename > From: [email protected] > To: [email protected] > > 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 > >> >>>> > >> >>>> > >> > > >>
