I responded in the other thread that after thinking about deprecating and killing ctx in 2.0, it would be better to deprecate, but keep it around for the deprecation period (6 mo?). We want to give plugin developers time to migrate/upgrade their plugins when they have time, rather than force them to do it this month or it won't work.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 5:21 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>>>> >>
