It's a change of semantics. We can't just dump them. I'll admit that the syntax is confusing - we've already discussed making it a bit nicer and there's an old bug for making it more obvious.
*But* - less code - no, now there's more code in every plugin. Less complexity? This is subjective. Is this even worth putting our time into? Is this addressing a problem? I don't think so, but that's just my opinion. One common usage of <runs/> is to have a module tell cordova not to fire deviceready until the plugin says it's ready. For app-harness, this change will add significant complexity, because instead right now we include all modules (even for those the app we're launching doesn't want), and that's a harmless thing to do. If things change so that all modules are executed on start-up, we'll have to re-package at runtime our version of cordova.js. On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree. And less code! > > > On Wed, Apr 9, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Dump them, I see no use for a declarative level of indirection. > > > > > > > > > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 2:15 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Apr 8, 2014 at 12:50 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think symbol mapping comes with some nuances, and having the them > in > > a > > > > declarative way makes it easier than telling all plugins to write > their > > > JS > > > > in a certain way. > > > > > > > > > Makes what "exactly" easier ? > > > > > > > > > > It's a level of indirection that gives us the ability to > > > > control exactly *when* the mapping happens for example. > > > > > > > > > > Why does this matter ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The question of whether we *need* them is not a good way to phrase > it I > > > > think. Rather: > > > > Pros? Cons? Worth changing at this point? > > > > > > > > > > Pros: I don't see any. Like Michal suggested in another post, I see the > > > benefit of having a lib (builder.js) that clobbers/merges namespaces > that > > > plugins could consume. I don't see the benefits of dedicated XML tags. > > > > > > Cons: > > > > > > Unnecessary complexity > > > > > > It is not worth changing. Just worth dropping support for in my > opinion. > > > And not now but 6 months after we decide to do it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 5, 2014 at 10:56 AM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > On Apr 4, 2014 10:22 PM, "Michal Mocny" <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > To be clear: support for the tags is needed for plugins to work > as > > > they > > > > > do > > > > > > now. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'm optimistic that we could replacing them with a library, but > > > Andrew > > > > > had > > > > > > a few good points in the other thread for us to make sure we > don't > > > > > > overlook. > > > > > > > > > > > > Lets just prototype it on the core plugins, shall we? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 10:29 PM, Anis KADRI < > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes the library exists (it's common/builder.js) and it can be > > used > > > by > > > > > > > plugins and yes it runs on startup automatically (unless we > tell > > it > > > > not > > > > > > > too) by require()ing the library and calling the appropriate > > > method. > > > > So > > > > > > do > > > > > > > you agree that the tags are not needed then ? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 7:07 PM, Michal Mocny < > > [email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As commented in another thread, these are super useful, but I > > see > > > > > some > > > > > > > hope > > > > > > > > to replacing them with a library instead of tooling support. > > We > > > > > would > > > > > > > > still need to run these automatically on startup somehow. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 8:48 PM, Anis KADRI < > > [email protected] > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > and I mean the tags. plugins should be able to > clobber/merge > > > the > > > > > > window > > > > > > > > (or > > > > > > > > > any other context) if they need to. We can advise > developers > > to > > > > use > > > > > > our > > > > > > > > > builder module that does just that or they can write their > > own > > > > > > > > > clobber/merges code. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
