aight
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 6:13 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >
