exactly! And plugins, I think, will end up being independently versioned so if ppl want old and busted they can have it. =P
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: > SGTM. First step towards deprecation is turning it into a plugin so that > people can not install it :) > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >> >>> > > >> >> > >> >>> > > >> >> >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> > >> >>> > > >> >> >>> > > >> >>> > >> >>> >> > >>
