+1 wait until 3.1. +1 add shims for less breakage
Also worth pointing out that we'll need to add this to the deprecation list on the wiki On 7/15/13 11:30 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote: >The reason things broke back then was we didn't leave in shims to point >anyone compiling against com.phonegap.api to org.apache.cordova.api. That >was quickly corrected. > >I agree with the package name change but with 3.0 shipping this week(?). >It >should probably wait until the next version. > > >Simon Mac Donald >http://hi.im/simonmacdonald > > >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >> No. You are proposing an API change. A package is most certainly a >> part of the API! When we moved from `com.phonegap` to `org.apache` >> there was a huge outcry b/c it broke all existing community plugins. >> >> I'm completely open to changing stuff for 3.0 but, again, what >> specifically are you proposing we change? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> >>wrote: >> > I agree. The only downside I see is that it will be hard to dissociate >> core >> > plugins from other but I don't think it's really that important. Also >> > because it's not a giant change it could happen for 3.0. >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Max Woghiren <m...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> > >> >> I'm not proposing any API changes in this email; example (1) does >> mention >> >> the relocation of FileHelper.java, but that's more to illustrate the >> >> benefits of repackaging the plugins. >> >> >> >> I would think the plugin package change should happen *for* 3.0, >>before >> >> people actually start using the plugins all bundled in one package. >> It's >> >> not a giant change. >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >> >> >> > I think all of this makes good sense but will have to land sometime >> >> > post 3.0 as that we're pretty much in the final stretch now anyhow. >> >> > Which APIs are you specifically proposing we change? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Max Woghiren <m...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >> > > On Android, all Cordova plugins are in the package >> >> > org.apache.cordova.core. >> >> > > It makes sense to put each plugin into its own package. Aside >>from >> >> > 3.0's >> >> > > conceptual shift into "plugins as completely individual entities" >> and >> >> the >> >> > > fact that plugins aren't really "core", here's some rationale: >> >> > > >> >> > > 1. If two plugins have a file with the same name, we'll avoid >> >> > > collisions. For instance, core Cordova has FileHelper.java. >> This >> >> is >> >> > the >> >> > > wrong place for it in 3.0 and we'd like to move it to the >>plugins >> >> > that use >> >> > > it (removing unused methods in each plugin's version). >>However, >> >> this >> >> > will >> >> > > lead to a collision in apps that use two of these plugins, >>since >> >> > they'll >> >> > > both be in the same package. >> >> > > 2. All plugin files will be separated into their packages in >>your >> >> IDE. >> >> > > This makes working on an individual plugin easier‹you can see >> the >> >> > > associated files at a glance. If I'm working on a plugin with >> >> > multiple >> >> > > files, I shouldn't have to hunt for related files to ensure >>I'm >> not >> >> > missing >> >> > > anything. >> >> > > 3. Since our plugins will be used as starting points for >> third-party >> >> > > plugins, we won't accidentally encourage plugin developers to >>use >> >> the >> >> > same >> >> > > namespace. >> >> > > >> >> > > I would propose something like >> org.apache.cordova.plugin.<plugin_name>. >> >> > >> >> >>
