Thanks Anis and Fil! If you need help, I suppose you could assign some starter issues so I can get a feel for the codebase
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > I will take a look Shaz. I'll update that in a separate thread where we > can put more discussion into task details and separation of work. > > On 4/7/13 12:57 PM, "Anis KADRI" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >CB-2727 && CB-2719 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2719> are > >resolved shaz (in master not future). I will take care of CB-2717 && > >CB-2718 > > this week. > > > > > >On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Fil, > >> I have some issues filed for plugman: http://cl.ly/O7Th > >> I'd like to contribute but since we have many cooks here, I don't know > >>if I > >> will be treading on some code that is going to change anyway. Some of > >>them > >> filed are critical for iOS, but not labeled with 'future'. Can you take > >>a > >> quick glance and see where the issues fit in the scheme of things? > >> > >> > >> > >> On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > To summarize: > >> > > >> > - yes plugman needs more work before we can utilize standalone > >>plugins. > >> > > >> > We have several committers working on this. There are issues filed in > >> JIRA > >> > (mainly assigned to Braden, Tim and me). With this being the blocker > >>to > >> > moving to a bare bridge implementation of Cordova, anyone is free to > >>jump > >> > in and help there :). All of the plugman must-have features are tagged > >> > with "future" so do a search fro that in the JIRA if you want to help > >> out. > >> > > >> > - people concerned about doing too much right now > >> > > >> > To reiterate Brian's point, let's take it slow. Go one plugin at a > >>time. > >> > We have 3-4 months before the slated 3.0 release. > >> > > >> > - code living in two spots at once > >> > > >> > This one is tricky, but IMO code living in two spots isn't a massive > >>deal > >> > at this point. The benefits to having plugin code, until we hit 3.0, > >>live > >> > in two spots at once is: > >> > > >> > * for 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, users of cordova will still get the standard > >>APIs > >> > which they expect > >> > * we have testable plugin code that can help the development of > >>plugman > >> > and cli > >> > > >> > The downside is clear: code in two spots. As long as the structure of > >>the > >> > plugin code in the plugin repo is solid (I.e. Has a plugin.xml, and > >>base > >> > functionality is provided for the native bits), I would be satisfied. > >> That > >> > would be good enough for plugins being used as test fixtures. > >> > > >> > Finally, once we are ready to remove all of the plugins from the core > >> > repos (say, a few months down the road, around the time of 3.0.0rc1), > >>we > >> > can do it in one fell swoop, and move over any bug fixes / features > >> landed > >> > in the core repos for the plugins into the plugin repos. > >> > > >> > My $0.02. > >> > > >> > On 4/7/13 5:47 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > >I like the idea, but I think we should make sure that it will work > >> before > >> > >pulling out the plugins. E.g. plugin JS undergo a different > >> transformation > >> > >with the new system than with Jake. I think they'll function fine if > >>we > >> > >pluginstall it into our project *templates*, but for people > >>performing > >> > >upgrades, it'll be more complicated. Another tricky bit is ARC. We > >> > >previously discussed holding off changing the default template to ARC > >> > >until > >> > >3.0. Until we do though, core plugins will not compile if added to > >>them. > >> > >Instead, they need to be added to the CordovaLib project, but their > >> assets > >> > >still need to be added to their top-level project. > >> > > > >> > >I think we can still get to the state where we bundle in plugins > >>during > >> > >packaging, but I want to avoid having code alive in two spots at > >>once if > >> > >possible. E.g. if we move out the java code for Accelerometer, then > >>we > >> > >should delete it from cordova-android. Before we do this though, > >>plugman > >> > >needs a bit more work on it and and also on the coho tool. E.g. > >>plugman > >> > >right now only works with plugin JS if you're using the "future" > >>branch. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > >On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > > >> > >> Those should be rolled back in by the COHO tool (using the plugman > >> tool) > >> > >> for the phonegap dist. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Grieve > >><[email protected]> > >> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >> > I agree that moving plugins into repos isn't tied to API audits, > >>but > >> > >> > doesn't moving plugins gradually prevent our ability to do > >>releases? > >> > >>E.g. > >> > >> > 2.7 is missing two plugins since they were moved into different > >> repos. > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > >> > > That synopsis on the wiki was super helpful Joe. I think we > >>should > >> > >>stop > >> > >> > > thinking we have to do EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. We do not need > >>to > >> > >>audit > >> > >> > any > >> > >> > > apis. We do not need to update anything before moving into > >> plugins. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > We need to slowly move a plugin at a time, keep their current > >> APIs, > >> > >>and > >> > >> > > methodically move to the next API. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > Anything that does not fit: don't move it out. We'll deal w/ it > >> > >>later. > >> > >> It > >> > >> > > looks like everything 'with specs' can be moved with relative > >> ease. > >> > >> Start > >> > >> > > there. Worry about the rest when you get there. I suspect that > >>is > >> > >> plenty > >> > >> > to > >> > >> > > try to achieve in the meantime. > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected] > > > >> > >>wrote: > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Max Woghiren < > >> [email protected]> > >> > >> > wrote: > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > In Android, I've split out common File code into a > >>FileHelper > >> > >> class. > >> > >> > > > It's > >> > >> > > > > not a plugin, and will be exposed to developers. This is > >>the > >> > >>only > >> > >> > > > > shared-code example I know of, but if we find others (via > >>the > >> > >> > > visibility > >> > >> > > > > removal test), we can similarly pull out the common code. > >> > >> > > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > There's a lot of code that's meant to be public on > >> CordovaWebView, > >> > >> > > > since CordovaWebView is supposed to be a stand-alone > >>component > >> > >>that's > >> > >> > > > embeddable in other Android projects. We really need to > >>decide > >> > >>what > >> > >> > > > to expose. I also want to see DroidGap paired down and gone, > >> > >>since I > >> > >> > > > don't want people messing with anything in that class at all. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > Other than that, I can't think of any Android code that > >>should > >> be > >> > >> > > > public. That being said, I think we're getting off-topic. I > >> > >>think we > >> > >> > > > need to start on the dreaded API audit that we've been > >>putting > >> > >>off. > >> > >> > > > It's clear that every plugin will need to be updated to the > >>new > >> > >>spec > >> > >> > > > before we do this exercise. > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > > >> > > >> > >
