Fil, It will most likely not just be BB, so your solution may not be future proof. I would draw a line in the sand stating that there must be a bb-config file which instructs the cli build command of which sdk version to use (via an explicit path ). OR it could be a command line argument at build time. I assume that we should be able to target any specific sdk version, and this is not restricted to being a once only issue that can be resolved at the time of 'adding a new platform target' and must be dealt with every time we build.
I think making this script interactive is extremely limiting if we want it to be used by other tools. If this is not an issue, then go for it ... On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 3:47 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > So that's what I'm trying to see if we can fix. > > The multiple SDKs that use the same executable script name throws a wrench > into this whole thing.. Lame. > > What if we drew a line in the sand and said for BlackBerry we only support > BB10? Then we can get rid of prompts and tell people to put their BB10 SDK > (not their playbook SDK) bbwp path on their system PATH? > > On 1/28/13 3:37 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > >uh oh. so, does this mean we do both and put prompting behind a > >configuration option? > > > >RECURSIVE ERROR > > > >On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:25 PM, Gord Tanner <gtan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I think the reason blackberry doesn't put the sdk on the path is > >>because they need to have multiple sdk versions (all with the same > >>command names) on the same machine. > >> > >> -1 for path > >> +1 for prompting > >> > >> Sent from my iPhone > >> > >> On 2013-01-28, at 6:22 PM, Jesse MacFadyen <purplecabb...@gmail.com> > >>wrote: > >> > >>> +1 path and configuration for credentials. > >>> > >>> -1 prompting for values, or confirming previous values. > >>> > >>> I think the tool should be non-interactive, or at least that is my > >>>expectation. > >>> > >>> On fail simply provide advice on how to remedy the situation. > >>> Prompting for a path is out of scope IMO. Its much better to document > >>> expectations and fail noisily when they are not met. I thinks. > >>> > >>> Cheers, > >>> Jesse > >>> > >>> Sent from my iPhone5 > >>> > >>> On 2013-01-28, at 2:23 PM, Don Coleman <don.cole...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> I have the Android tools in my path but not BlackBerry. > >>> > >>> Prompting for the BlackBerry file locations and passwords etc works > >>>OK. It > >>> would be nice to search the default location, or at least store all > >>>this > >>> info in ~/.cordova-cli so the next time I run the tool I can just > >>>confirm > >>> the previous entries. > >>> > >>> I like the way the yeoman.io audit script ( > >>> https://github.com/yeoman/yeoman/wiki/Manual-Install) checks for > what's > >>> required and offers solutions for what's missing. > >>> > >>> > >>> On Mon, Jan 28, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> Hey all, > >>>> > >>>> Working out some bootstrap-type stuff for cordova-cli. Here's a > >>>>situation > >>>> I am dealing with now in the cli code that I would like people's > >>>>input. > >>>> > >>>> When you add Android to your project's platforms, the requirements, as > >>>> imposed by the underlying cordova-android library, is that the > >>>>Android SDK > >>>> be installed (duh) and that the SDK tools are available on your path. > >>>> When you add BlackBerry to your project's platforms, you also need the > >>>> BlackBerry WebWorks SDK. However, because BlackBerry uses a > >>>>configuration > >>>> approach, you do not need to have the WEbWorks SDK on your path. > >>>>Instead, > >>>> you need to explicitly list out the location of the SDK in a config > >>>>file > >>>> (as well as device and signing key passwords, device and simulator > >>>>Ips, > >>>> and whatever else is necessary). > >>>> > >>>> As such, the CLI tools work similarly: you need Android tools on your > >>>>path > >>>> to work with Android, and for BlackBerry you are asked a few > >>>>questions in > >>>> a prompt when you add a blackberry project the first time (enter the > >>>>path > >>>> to your SDK, enter your signing key password, etc). > >>>> > >>>> So could easily go with this. It works as is. The question that comes > >>>>to > >>>> my mind though is, why is there a difference? I think we should pick > >>>>one > >>>> of these approaches and stick with it: either have the SDK's required > >>>> tools on the system's PATH, or ask the user for them every time (or > >>>>point > >>>> them to the config file for filling out). > >>>> > >>>> Thoughts? > >>>> > >>>> > > -- @purplecabbage risingj.com
