Well, we still need an API/plugin for playing audio. The w3c spec is pretty involved. In the past Simon has suggested we try to unify around HTML audio. At any rate I don't think we can just get rid of it.
Sent from my iPhone On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: > +1 > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> So instead of revisiting it just let it die and kick up a new one for web >> audio? >> >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> So... back to cordova-plugin-media then? >>> >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> 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 >>
