This is correct Michal. Still not sure I like the fact that we are either a) creating a new manifest for applications that are at odds with config.xml or b) extending config.xml with our own shit.
In the end the concern here is smart re-use of code (I.e. Hey, plugin installation is sort of like app management), yes? Why not code review the cordova-cli and plugman projects and see which areas we could optimize + refactor to achieve this goal, instead of coming up with a new approach that requires new manifests? I've also been recommending we move the plugman code into cordova-cli for a while. On 2/12/13 11:37 AM, "Michal Mocny" <[email protected]> wrote: >Plugins can specify whole directories as well, so it would be trivial to >copy the whole www folder, I believe. > > >On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:31 PM, Braden Shepherdson ><[email protected]>wrote: > >> Plugin devs are left to put together their own file structure. Plugins >>are >> pretty freeform, you specify where to find things with <asset> and >> <source-file> tags; the installed locations have nothing to do with the >> plugin repo locations. >> >> The main difference that I can see is that plugins specify every file >>they >> want copied where when installed, whereas apps just put things in www/. >> >> I'm leaning towards the correct approach here being to treat them as >> separate but share as much code as we can. >> >> Braden >> >> >> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 2:08 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> >>wrote: >> >> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > > >> > > >So, if an app was bundled as a plugin with its www folder, then if >>it >> > > >could >> > > >use config-file modification to set the startPage (this may not be >> > > >supported yet), would that be enough? Ideally plugins would >>support >> > > >importing a while config.xml file? >> > > >> > > I think so.. Currently config file modification in plugman only >> supports >> > > appending to a config document but that can be changed. >> > > >> > > >Also, there is obviously a bit of confusion with using the name >> "plugin" >> > > >for an "app". >> > > >> > > Yeah this is my biggest concern. With the current setup, it is clear >> > where >> > > the application goes. It is on its own and exists right from the get >> go - >> > > without any added platforms or plugins. While plugin.xml is nice in >> that >> > > it supports conditional platform config modification + assets, does >> this >> > > mean users will need to add a plugin.xml to their app before using >>it >> > with >> > > the tools? This all seems backwards. While I understand the >> functionality >> > > of both current and proposed approaches essentially DO the same, >>this >> > > doesn't mean we should dictate the user workflow to follow the >> > > implementation. >> > > >> > >> > Its true, the names are confusing and there are slight differences. >> > Perhaps cordova-cli could support two types of manifests: config.xml >>(or >> > call it app.xml?) and plugin.xml. Both apps and plugins could have >>the >> > same folder structure, and the manifests would mostly share a common >>set >> of >> > accepted tags/functionality. >> > >> > As for setup, then cordova-cli could have an "app-init" action and >> > "app-install". >> > >> > (side-question: do we have "plugin-init" cordova-cli command planned >>or >> do >> > we tell plugin devs to initialize the file structure manually?) >> > >> > -Michal >> > >>
