shhh
On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 10:18 AM, purplecabbage <purplecabb...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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. > >> >
