James,

I think that sounds like what we've been thinking -- but, why do you expect
to need to copy something when doing an upgrade?  Is it because you think
upgrade means re-creating a new workspace (which is kinda true right now)?
 We are hoping to support in-place upgrades, with no copies needed.

-Michal


On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 4:34 PM, James Jong <[email protected]> wrote:

> I think you have covered the common workflows.  Some developers will have
> their own workflow but it should resemble the bin script method in the end.
>
> What I'd like to see is the ability to have my app's user config.xml (1
> per platform would be fine) and have defaults for what is not specified
> there.  The user specified config.xml takes precedence.  So when I upgrade,
> I just need to copy over the config.xml.
>
> -James Jong
>
> On Aug 28, 2013, at 2:56 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > supporting platforms/ as generated content (aka "build artifact") is
> > certainly an ultimate goal, but only for the CLI workflow, and even then
> we
> > would love to suport fallback to sane actions when users don't see it
> that
> > way and do modify platforms/.
> >
> > Second, a single config.xml shared for all platforms, modified directly
> by
> > the user maybe might be possible (may involve <platform> tags or just
> > whitelisted tag per platform), but I'm not sure thats really what we
> want:
> > * Plugins modify it anyway, so its not really the final version
> > * When we upgrade platforms we may want to add/remove/change default
> > values, so its better to separate platform defaults from user explicit
> > choices
> >
> > -Michal
> >
> > On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 2:30 PM, Gorkem Ercan <[email protected]
> >wrote:
> >
> >> We (JBoss Tools) have been playing with ideas on how to work with
> >> config.xml. One thing we do right now is to have only one config.xml
> file,
> >> we try to treat config.xml as a universal way of defining cordova
> >> applications. We do not have platform versions of config,xml (l think
> cli
> >> massages them per platform right now) but rather copy the config.xml to
> >> platform directory (I guess on CLI this would be at the prepare stage)
> . I
> >> think what the developer works with and what gets deployed in the
> >> application should be same. It prevents any surprises to developer when
> >> he/she is trying to debug a problem. I guess use case/requirement here
> is
> >> not to have config.xml differences between platforms.
> >>
> >> As a note we treat platforms/... directory as generated content (and
> >> regenerate them when needed).
> >> --
> >> Gorkem
> >>
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Braden Shepherdson <
> [email protected]
> >>> wrote:
> >>
> >>> So we have several bugs[1][2][3] about fixing the handling of
> config.xml
> >>> and of upgrading CLI projects. Upgrading platforms is hard because the
> >> user
> >>> might have been modifying files in the platforms/foo directory, and we
> >>> don't want to go overwriting them. Most of the time the file that's
> been
> >>> changed is the platform's config.xml.
> >>>
> >>> So we (the Google team) are working on a proposal for rearranging how
> we
> >>> handle config.xml files in order to make upgrades easier, and solving
> >> some
> >>> of these other problems (splash screens) easier. Also to make the CLI
> >>> tooling simpler, because currently the platform config.xml file is both
> >> the
> >>> input and output of several processes (mainly adding and removing
> >> plugins,
> >>> as well as cordova prepare).
> >>>
> >>> What we want to know, in writing this proposal is: what use-cases for
> the
> >>> config.xml files are there? There seem to be two:
> >>> 1. Not using CLI, just bin/create and maybe Plugman.
> >>> 2. Using CLI, and needing to upgrade smoothly from the 3.0 world to 3.1
> >>> with these changes to the files.
> >>>
> >>> Is there anything else we should be thinking about? If not, we'll have
> >> the
> >>> proposal sent around tomorrow.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Braden
> >>>
> >>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4624
> >>> [2] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3216
> >>> [3] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-3571
> >>>
> >>
>
>

Reply via email to