I was thinkin we'd just deprecate the media spec altogether for a starter/subset of the web audio api (perhaps polyfil the audio element while we're at it).
.... should we kick up a thread about that? (Added file transfer to the non-spec plugins.) On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >>> > > >> >> > >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> > >>> > > >> >>> > > >>> > >>> >
