I think consistency with input and output config.xml files makes more sense than consistency with plugin.xml. So +1 <feature/>
Sent from my iPhone > On Apr 22, 2014, at 8:06 PM, Gorkem Ercan <gorkem.er...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 8:44 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> Anis - Gorkem wants <feature> since it works with his IDE. *Why* do >> you prefer <feature>? > Just to be clear I am not trying to push for <feature> because it works on > the JBoss/Eclipse IDE now. I do not mind ripping it apart and implementing > a new editor if there is a good benefit. However I favor <feature> because > it allows validation and content assist due to its XSD (I think we have > discussed about this earlier) which is probably the only benefit of the xml > markup on a configuration file these days. > > If we use dependency for defining the plugins to be restored it does not > mean that <feature> magically disappears. It is still used by the platform > runtimes and therefore the CLI generated config.xml files. I guess that > would mean we still need to keep the documentation etc for it around. > > Also one thing that I have noticed when implementing the restore for > plugins because all the information is given as <param>s under feature it > is very easily extendible. For instance if someday we want to support > enterprise plugin registries, we could just add <param name="registry" > value="http://registry.acme.corp"; /> and use the value on the > implementation. Same could be done to dependency by adding another > attribute which would break the validations etc. > > > >>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> I prefer <feature>. >>> >>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Mark Koudritsky <kam...@google.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> I prefer the <dependency> syntax. It's shorter, more intuitive and >>>> consistent with plugin.xml. I don't see much value in _partial_ >> compliance >>>> with the w3c spec. >>>> >>>> >>>> On Tue, Apr 22, 2014 at 1:31 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@google.com> >> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Gorkem is adding awesome feature to restore plugins/platforms your app >>>>> depends on. There is some debate on the correct syntax to use in the >>>>> config.xml file: do we use (a) plugin.xml style <dependency> tags, or >> (b) >>>>> w3c widget spec <feature> tags? >>>>> >>>>> Gorkem votes (b), arguing that using widget spec helps his tools with >>>>> editing config.xml (existing gui editor, I assume?), and has >> implemented >>>> a >>>>> PR for it (https://github.com/apache/cordova-cli/pull/165). >>>>> >>>>> I vote (a), arguing that we already don't match widget spec, and >> already >>>>> have established syntax for for specifying plugin urls & versions in >>>>> plugin.xml (with docs and examples), and its better for our CLI >>>>> implementation to use existing plugin deps handlers. >>>>> >>>>> What do you think? >>>>> >>>>> Background: read full thread titled "[GitHub] cordova-cli pull >> request: >>>>> CB-6469" >>
