Totally makes sense to separate them. File is spec-based, FileTransfer is not.
On 2/6/13 10:16 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> wrote: >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 >> > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> >> > > >> > >>
