I agree with window.plugins for everything that is not a polyfill.
On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 > >
