Some important criteria in my mind: - are there recent contributions, and active contributors? - is there a getting-started guide, and are quirks for existing APIs documented? - is there a jira component that people can submit defects under?
Ultimately I don't see value in defining things any further than just listing what platforms are supported. What is the use of having something called 'core' and having some platforms, and not others in it? We can define in more detail what we call 'supported' or 'level of support', but ultimately I see this as a slope and not a cliff ... Maybe instead of calling something 'sunset' we should just list the date of last contribution, or list the last version number where there were contributions. On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dave Johnson <[email protected]>wrote: > Yup > > On Sunday, January 6, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > trying to understand, you mean the label of core vs whatever is > > meaningless but you do like having a baseline set of reqs for the > > impl? > > > > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Dave Johnson <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > I don't think it's good to be prescriptive about what a platform is - > > code > > > and tests (based around that list of things @brian mentioned plus the > > > plugin API) should determine what a platform is. > > > > > > If someone wants to contribute code and tests to create a platform they > > > should be able to do so. There are places where Symbian devices are > > popular > > > and in circulation - if someone wants to create a platform for that in > > > Cordova they should be able to without having to convince you to add it > > to > > > the core platforms on the wiki. > > > > > > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > > > >> Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is > > >> going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels > > >> is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can > > >> expect the Cordova platform to maintain. > > >> > > >> Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in > > >> circulation, providing: > > >> > > >> - A standard low level bridge API and utilities. > > >> - Standard set of low level CLI tools > > >> - Embeddable (if possible) > > >> - InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc. > > >> - [what else?] > > >> > > >> (I am also assuming that even though core plugins will be removed from > > >> platforms we are going to continue maintaining those basic device > > >> APIs.) > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Dave Johnson < > [email protected]> > > >> wrote: > > >> > If we are moving towards a world where all that a platform has to do > > is > > >> > implement the bridge / hack / ffi / whatever you want to call the > > message > > >> > passing from webview to native such that a developer can compose > apps > > >> from > > >> > available plugins, then is there any need for distinction between > > core or > > >> > otherwise platforms? If people want to contribute, maintain and test > > the > > >> > bridge code for a platform does that not make it core? > > >> > > > >> > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Ben Combee wrote: > > >> > > > >> >> Yeah, there is a bit of work happening in Open webOS right now... > > We've > > >> got > > >> >> ports to the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 hardware that are actively > > being > > >> >> worked on by the community, and we've also got some x86 hardware > > working > > >> >> with the webOS runtime environment being hosted on Ubuntu.... and > > then > > >> >> there's the stuff that we've not announced yet. :) > > >> >> > > >> >> I expect there will be a bit of work around Cordova and webOS this > > year. > > >> >> We just published an article on using Enyo 2 with Cordova for webOS > > >> apps ( > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> > > > http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova > > >> >> ), > > >> >> and as we evolve Open webOS, we're picking Cordova as our main > > runtime > > >> to > > >> >> handle letting various web frameworks (including Enyo 2) run on > Open > > >> webOS > > >> >> devices, handling any adaptation from our built-in APIs to more > > standard > > >> >> methods. > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> >> > > >> >> > Its certainly up for debate, while webOS still is out there it is > > not > > >> >> > shipping on any devices, nor has it for a couple of years. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > However, we are seeing an interesting trend towards web operating > > >> >> > systems: chrome, windows, firefox, and tizen. This puts webOS in > > some > > >> >> > good company and given the trend I could see interest piquing > again > > >> >> > this year if consumers have an easy way to get said bits onto an > > >> >> > unlocked device. > > >> >> > > > >> >> > Markus is there a way to install webOS on Android devices yet? > -- @purplecabbage risingj.com
