On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 5:23 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > A package namespace is not a part of the API? Are we saying we in > Cordova draw the semantic line at a method signature? (Its certainly > not a normal view on what defines an API. Anyhow! Super not > important.) > > One more time! Specifics. What packages are changing in precisely what > files? Right now we're discussing a completely undefined scope in > light of an obviously standard best practice. > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > -1 to shims. A plugin's java package name shouldn't be considered a part > of > > its API. That's why there is a mapping in the config.xml. > > > > Shouldn't have to change any require() statements, or any JS at all. > Those > > use plugin IDs, not java namespaces. > > > > Replace-all on the package statement at the top of the file, and change > the > > reference in plugin.xml. I'd put this change in the "polish" category. > > That's what we should be doing now, no? > ^^ this is the specifics. pkg stmts for plugin files + refs in plugin.xml. This is different from the phonegap->cordova change because a) no core files are changed and b) we've already changed the pkg name by adding ".core"
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > >> +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>. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> > >> >
