an upgrade script would be really helpful as well. -Mike
On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 12:44 PM, Piotr Walczyszyn < piotr.walczys...@gmail.com> wrote: > As I suggested in the pull request comments, this would really make > sense to update bin/create script either by enhancing it with > additional argument to embed the CordovaLib with newly created > projects or even make this behavior a default one. > > p. > > 2012/9/27 Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>: > > Suppose you have 5 projects that depend on 2.1, and 3 that depend on 2.0. > > > > One big difference between the two options is that for the 2nd option, > > you'd have 8 copies of Cordova, whereas for the first option you'd have > > only two. > > > > I think getting the correct workflow set up with Xcode workspaces will be > > quite cumbersome though, and not something that will be easy for us to do > > with tooling. We'd pretty much have to rely on documentation to tell > people > > how to drag multiple projects into their own workspace. > > > > I think maybe another key point is that CordovaLib is really small, and > > will get even smaller if/when we remove the core plugins from it. In this > > model, the majority of the code will be pluginstalled into users' > projects > > anyways, so it won't be a bit deal to have a bunch of copies of > CordovaLib > > around. > > > > The model that pwalczyszyn is using is to copy the CordovaLib directory > > into each project's directory, similar to how we have a "cordova" > directory > > that we copy into it. Taken from his pull requests comments: > > > > MyProject > >> -- cordova > >> -- MyProject > >> ---- CordovaLib > >> ------ CordovaLib.xcodeproj > >> ---- Plugins > >> ---- Resources > >> ---- .... > >> -- MyProject.xcodeproj > >> -- www > > > > > > Having CordovaLib a sibling of Plugins does make sense in this model I > > think. Either that, or have it up one level. > > > > > > To implement this, we'll need to change our bin/create script to copy in > > the CordovaLib directory. Not too hard. > > > > For upgrades, how will we address this though? Just add documentation > > telling users to delete the old directory and copy over the new one? The > > steps would be: > > cp -r path/to/new/cordova/CordovaLib MyProject > > path/to/new/cordova/bin/update_cordova_subproject MyProject > > MyProject/CordovaLib > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Dave Johnson <dave.c.john...@gmail.com > >wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Mike Reinstein wrote: > >> > >> > Agree on all points with Brian. > >> > > >> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io > <javascript:;>> > >> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > > Global dependancies? It's a library, why would you not be > dependent > >> on > >> > > it? > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > We're talking about global deps vs local deps. Not whether or not > >> you'll > >> > > have a dependency! > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > Standardize on the apis and not the files. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Uh, ok sure, not sure I understand? > >> > > > >> > > It only takes a few weeks of ruby (and/or python) dev to see where > >> global > >> > > packages become ambushes for epic fail. Node learned from this and > >> > > explicitly created lexically scoped packages. Typically when you > ship > >> > > projects you want to have the dependencies bundled to minimize > issues. > >> > > > >> > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > Not to mention the extra complexity of #2, and multiple out of sync > >> > > > project issues. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > I do not see where this creates complexity. It reduces it. I have a > >> > project > >> > > that I want up-do-date. It has a dependency on 2.1.0. I have another > >> > > project I do not want to update running 2.0.0: no problem. If I > have a > >> > > global dependency: problem! > >> > > > >> > > The other issue here is the requirement of having your library > >> > > a separate concern for the end user project. When I want to build a > >> > project > >> > > from another repo it requires me to install the correct version of > the > >> > > dependency. With option 2 the library is a part of the project and > no > >> > > installer step is required. Again: reduced complexity. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > I originally moved the codebase to a library and created the > template > >> > > > over 2 years ago, so I may be blind to the benefits of #2, but to > me > >> > > > this makes our library become a boilerplate... am I wrong? > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > Do not see how this is related either. > >> > > > >> > > >> >
