I thought FileTransfer was a part of File. Maybe it makes sense to separate them though?
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Becky Gibson <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, I shouldn't have confused the issue about audio and media! I guess I > just get annoyed when I go to mobile spec and it is labelled as "audio" :-) > We can leave it as cordova-plugin-media so it matches the JS api name. > Although, I think we are creating the same type of confusion if we rename > capture to media-capture but I don't have a strong opinion on that. Plus, > I see we are doing that for acceleration and compass as well. I guess now > is as good a time as any to match the W3C names! > > Also, where is FileTransfer? > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > Great! I like the spec-based names. I think I have the opposite thought > as > > Becky. Our current media plugin doesn't follow the WebAudio spec at all. > > How about we call it cordova-media for now since that's what it's called > in > > our docs, and then if we ever implement WebAudio, then we'll have the > name > > available for that. Maybe we should even put it the spec-less category > > (unless there's some older spec that it was based off of?) > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Just kicked up a quick wiki page to help vett this. I'm thinking we > > > try to stay as close to the spec names as possible. > > > > > > http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/Core%20Plugin%20Name%20Proposal > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Becky Gibson <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > My only comment would be about media. Currently it just supports > audio > > > so > > > > perhaps codova-plugin-audio makes more sense and we can leave media > > open > > > > for the rewrite. Although, I do realize the api is labelled "media" > so > > > > perhaps it would be too confusing to change the repo name. Just a > > > > thought..... > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > >> Before I go ahead with this, let's agree upon the repo names / which > > > >> plugins to include. > > > >> > > > >> Here's the proposed list: > > > >> > > > >> Repos to create: > > > >> > > > >> cordova-plugin-accelerometer > > > >> cordova-plugin-battery > > > >> cordova-plugin-camera > > > >> cordova-plugin-capture > > > >> cordova-plugin-compass > > > >> cordova-plugin-contacts > > > >> cordova-plugin-device > > > >> cordova-plugin-file > > > >> cordova-plugin-geolocation > > > >> cordova-plugin-globalization > > > >> cordova-plugin-logger > > > >> cordova-plugin-media > > > >> cordova-plugin-networkstatus > > > >> cordova-plugin-notification > > > >> cordova-plugin-splashscreen > > > >> cordova-plugin-inappbrowser > > > >> > > > >> Note that I have device and network status in this list. Plugins > that > > > delay > > > >> ondeviceready just add themselves to > channel.deviceReadyChannelsArray. > > > >> > > > >> Plugins *not* getting their own Repo: > > > >> > > > >> blackberry/plugin/java/app > > > >> android/plugin/android/app > > > >> android/plugin/android/storage > > > >> errgen/plugin/errgen > > > >> ios/plugin/ios/console (seems like this should be merged into the > > logger > > > >> plugin) > > > >> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/DOMStorage > > > >> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/XHRPatch > > > >> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/console > > > >> iOS's CDVLocalStorage.m > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected] > > > > > >> wrote: > > > >> > > > >> > Great! Sounds like an agreement :). I'll file an INFRA to get them > > > >> created. > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> > > > > >> >> +1 on separate repos. It's the sane choice. > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > > > >> >> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jesse <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > >> >> > +1, I agree on the separate repositories. > > > >> >> > I still contend that nothing should need to be 'built' and > there > > > >> should > > > >> >> be > > > >> >> > NO dependencies on the plugins from cordova-js, ( aside from > > > >> device.js + > > > >> >> > network.js which are both required pre device ready, and I > think > > > >> should > > > >> >> > remain in the cordova-js repo ) > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Anis KADRI < > [email protected] > > > > > > >> >> wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > +1 for separate repositories. Should take a bit longer than > > > normal > > > >> to > > > >> >> > > package a release but not too long especially if the repos > are > > > >> pulled > > > >> >> > from > > > >> >> > > a local source (ie no network overhead). > > > >> >> > > I'd be ok to ship a set of default plugins and give the > ability > > > for > > > >> >> > people > > > >> >> > > to build their 'own' Cordova. > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > I'm in favor of discreet plugin repos. It shouldn't effect > a > > > >> release > > > >> >> > > > if we automate install/remove and add to the Coho tool... > > > though > > > >> >> > > > perhaps this is a naive assumption. > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Andrew Grieve < > > > >> [email protected] > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > wrote: > > > >> >> > > > > Thought it'd be worth having a discussion around whether > we > > > >> want a > > > >> >> > > > separate > > > >> >> > > > > repo for each core plugin or not. > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > As far as I can see, we can either have all core plugins > in > > > one > > > >> >> repo, > > > >> >> > > or > > > >> >> > > > > have each in it's own and call them: > > > >> >> > > > > cordova-plugin-file > > > >> >> > > > > cordova-plugin-network > > > >> >> > > > > cordova-plugin-media > > > >> >> > > > > etc... > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > I think my preference would be to have them as their own > > > repos > > > >> so > > > >> >> > that > > > >> >> > > it > > > >> >> > > > > will be easier to add/remove lists of plugins to the > "which > > > ones > > > >> >> are > > > >> >> > > > core" > > > >> >> > > > > list. It will also let us version them separately (if we > > > want to > > > >> >> do > > > >> >> > > > this). > > > >> >> > > > > > > > >> >> > > > > The downside is that it may take longer to perform a > > release? > > > >> >> Would > > > >> >> > we > > > >> >> > > > even > > > >> >> > > > > bundle the plugins with releases anyways though? > > > >> >> > > > > > > >> >> > > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > -- > > > >> >> > @purplecabbage > > > >> >> > risingj.com > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > > >
