If you need a shell script, that can be easily hidden behind the node module.
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 22, 2014, at 9:34 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > Maybe harsh but I'm in favor of abandoning shell scripts altogether and > forcing modules as the way for hooks. Cross platform yada yada. > > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 9:23 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Very good point. Seen at least one other bug report that struggled with >> this use-case. >> >> I *think* hooks-as-a-module makes it easier. >> >> Just to be clear - I am also in favour of allowing hooks to be npm modules. >> Possible there's use in continuing to support bash scripts as hooks, but >> there are definitely advantages to allowing modules. >> >> >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:15 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> I was recently trying to solve a problem with hooks: how do I require() >>> cordova itself? (I was trying to call "cordova plugin ls" and ended up >>> just writing my own crude inline implementation instead). If the hooks >>> themselves are being require()-ed, does it simplify that problem? >>> >>> -Michal >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 12:04 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org >>>> wrote: >>> >>>> There are some *disadvantages* to not sub-shelling out for hooks: >>>> - Harder to capture their stdio (certainly do-able though by swapping >> out >>>> system.std* for the duration of the hook) >>>> - Harder to handle script failures (e.g. if they throw an uncaught >>>> exception, we would like to be able to say "This hook script failed: >>>> foo.js") >>>> - Maybe this is doable, by storing a global exception-was-thrown >>>> callback? >>>> - Gives hooks the ability to mess up cordova's environment (although >>> maybe >>>> the vm thing addresses this?) >>>> >>>> Would like to see tests for these things added before we launch this >>>> feature. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:40 AM, Sergey Grebnov (Akvelon) < >>>> v-seg...@microsoft.com> wrote: >>>> >>>>> +1, I will name it as 'context' >>>>> >>>>> Thx! >>>>> Sergey >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: Jonathan Bond-Caron [mailto:jbo...@gdesolutions.com] >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, April 22, 2014 7:34 AM >>>>> To: dev@cordova.apache.org >>>>> Subject: RE: Proposal: hooks support for plugins >>>>> >>>>>> On Mon Apr 21 03:39 PM, Sergey Grebnov (Akvelon) wrote: >>>>>> module.exports = function(platform, projectDir, pluginDir, >> cmdLine) { >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + platform); >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + projectDir); >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + pluginDir); >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + cmdLine); >>>>> >>>>> Personnaly prefer: >>>>> >>>>>> module.exports = function(hookApi) { >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + hookApi.platform); >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + hookApi.projectDir); >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + hookApi.pluginDir); >>>>>> console.log('hook.js: ' + hookApi.cmdLine);} >>>>> >>>>> Make it easier to pass other stuff in the future & using a sandoxed >>>>> hookApi object. >>
