Agree with everything Jesse said. cordova.plugins could be considered "safe", but not required. It's just JavaScript!
On 2/6/13 6:27 PM, "Jesse" <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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
