> I would prefer cordova.plugins instead of directly on cordova. +1 I agree, and like having core plugins live under cordova.plugins.*, but I don't think this should be a requirement of other plugins.
For example: com.dropbox.session.startAuthentication(this); makes sense to me In the end, anyone can come along and make their own aliases anyway ... it's only js var dBox = com.dropbox; PS: if devs are 'discovering' plugins in web inspector, then they already have installed them in their app ... ? And this assumes that web-inspector is available on the platform in question. On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:11 PM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Michal that hanging things off the cordova object can get > pretty unmanageable after a while, and having it namespaced under > cordova.plugins or something similar would be better. > > InAppBrowser is a weird one since window.open will work in browsers, but > not everything it supports is supported in browsers (addEventListener, etc) > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 5:48 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I like the proposal, and do think our extensions should be namespaced. > > However, your one example of InAppBrowser is debatable if it is a > polyfill > > or extension, and has good arguments for either side. So, perhaps we can > > leave that example (or any other specific plugin) aside, and focus on the > > overall proposal. > > > > I would prefer cordova.plugins instead of directly on cordova. > > > > I also think it would be nice for devs to discover cordova extensions in > > web inspector by just typing cordova.plugins. and see whats available. > > > > -Michal > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:33 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > Some of our APIs are meant to be polyfills, and some of them are not. > > > > > > It's great to expose the polyfill-type ones using the standards-based > > > symbols. E.g. FileEntry, requestFileSystem. > > > > > > For the custom ones though, I think it's important for devs to realize > > that > > > the APIs they are using are custom to Cordova, and will never work in > > other > > > browsers. > > > > > > Examples: > > > Camera: window.Camera > > > InAppBrowser: window.open() > > > globalization: navigator.globalization > > > > > > There's been some talk about deprecating the window.plugins namespace. > > But > > > why? I think it would be clearer if these apis were: > > > Camera: plugins.camera > > > InAppBrowser: plugins.inappbrowser.open > > > globalization: plugins.globalization > > > > > > This makes it much more clear that the APIs are not browser-based ones, > > but > > > Cordova-specific. > > > > > > If the rational to get rid of the plugins is to save on a global > symbol, > > > how about using cordova as the namespace? > > > > > > cordova.camera.getPicture() > > > cordova.inappbrowser.open() > > > corodva.globalization.getLocale() > > > > > > aka: > > > cordova.$PLUGIN_NAME.exports > > > > > > Thoughts? > > > > > > -- @purplecabbage risingj.com
