Let's start a new thread for browserify. Jesse - def. like the idea of injecting polyfills when they are not there but are required. In practice though, I think it ends up pretty much the same anyways: - On start-up you need to feature-detect Promise via JS - If it's not there, you need to inject it.
Whether the injection occurs via the native side shoving it in, or by cordova.js require()'ing a module is a matter of whether we check in es6-promise.js into each platform separately, or into cordova-js. On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 8:35 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > we should move browserify to main and drop that insane concat code > > its not heavyweight at all. it creates a hash in iife with deps mapped > in…as to why dep mgmt is better than concatenating…I don't think we need to > waste our time talking about that! > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 5:00 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > There's something implemented behind a --browserify flag, but not sure > what > > it does. > > > > Totally in favour of having CLI / plugman concatenate plugin JS with > > cordova.js, but not convinced that browserify is the right tool for this, > > as it seems quite heavy-weight for just concatenating things. If someone > is > > going to resume work on it, would love to hear a summary of what problems > > it's solving (if more than concatenation), and why something more > > light-weight wouldn't be better. > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:22 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > wrote: > > > > > We haven't worked on it, also curious. Anis, perhaps? > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > > > > > def think we should support those specs in our great and fabled api > > > > audit…had not considered the load order issue > > > > > > > > not insurmountable and probably should be a feature/fix for the > plugin > > > > loader load order …but also sort of scary… reminds me of script tags > > hell > > > > > > > > on that note: we need to make browserify thing first class. whats the > > > hold > > > > up on that front? > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Do we prefer to invent new cordova-specific apis, or prefer to > match > > > > > standard browser apis? When there is no browser spec to match then > > > > design > > > > > comes down to aesthetics and personal preference (as you say). But > > > often > > > > > there is an existing browser spec, and then it comes down to match > or > > > > > fork. I'm in the camp of preferring to match, and was under the > > > > assumption > > > > > others here were too. > > > > > > > > > > Given the upcoming specs mentioned earlier (sockets, file, > > filesystem, > > > > > permissions, service worker, fetch), seems that fighting the > adoption > > > of > > > > > promises in core apis implies opposing the adoption of modern web > > > specs. > > > > > e.g. I'm assuming Andrew was referring to > > > > > http://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/, since matching that spec > > *would* > > > > > require promises. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now, as I understand, you are not saying you are opposed to > adoption > > of > > > > > promises in Cordova, but that you are simply against the inclusion > > of a > > > > > polyfill directly inside cordova-js. I think that a > > promises-polyfill > > > > > plugin alternative has some technical downsides [1], but they seem > > not > > > so > > > > > insurmountable that we shouldn't just get passed this debate and do > > > that. > > > > > > > > > > In my opinion, we should prefer to create a common plugin (at least > > > until > > > > > browserify), since I really hope we don't tell devs to just include > > > their > > > > > own polyfill with each plugin. > > > > > > > > > > [1]: > > > > > - Can't rely on a polyfill plugin for cordova-js itself. There > are a > > > few > > > > > places where that may have been useful. > > > > > - We don't currently load plugins in an order that respects plugin > > > > > dependencies, so every plugin relying on promises-polyfill will > have > > to > > > > > require() it at runtime before using and forgetting to do so > > > > > may-or-may-not lead to an error. Maybe we just fix this in our > > plugin > > > > > loader. > > > > > - It seems odd that window.Promise will exist depending on which > > > plugins > > > > > you have installed. While this technically isn't different than > with > > > any > > > > > plugin modifying global symbols, it seems odd-er when applied to a > > > > > dependant platform feature. > > > > > > > > > > -Michal > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Why does battery-status 'require' promises? > > > > > > > > > > > > I agree that promises are here to stay, but I am unclear why it > > would > > > > be > > > > > a > > > > > > good idea to go and change/rewrite/break our apis to use them? > > > > > > > > > > > > Most of the windows plugins use promises all over the place, the > > > entire > > > > > > async windows js api is promise based, but this has zero impact > on > > > what > > > > > our > > > > > > core-api looks like to a user. The same should apply to any > plugin > > > that > > > > > > wants to depend on promises, just depend on a promise plugin, > which > > > may > > > > > or > > > > > > may not add polyfil code to the dom. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > @purplecabbage > > > > > > risingj.com > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > - no technical benefit (but aesthetics, sure) > > > > > > > - adds weight (payload and runtime) > > > > > > > - might interfere with userland polly > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Andrew Grieve < > > > agri...@chromium.org > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > One specific spot in core I'd like to use it is to address > this > > > > TODO > > > > > in > > > > > > > > Android's exec bridge: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-js/blob/master/src/android/exec.js#L263 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The actual need is for a setImmediate polyfill, but Promise > > does > > > > the > > > > > > same > > > > > > > > thing (with an extra object creation). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Ian Clelland < > > > > > iclell...@chromium.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Wed Dec 10 2014 at 10:17:38 AM Andrew Grieve < > > > > > > agri...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > userland means that plugins won't be able to use them > > unless > > > > > every > > > > > > > > plugin > > > > > > > > > > also includes a copy of the polyfill within it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at our core APIs, seems maybe it's just > > > battery-status > > > > > that > > > > > > > > will > > > > > > > > > > require it. Should we have battery-status include the > > > polyfill > > > > > > within > > > > > > > > > it? I > > > > > > > > > > hope not. I'd hate to get to where several plugins in my > > app > > > > all > > > > > > > bundle > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > same polyfill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Mozilla's new File API, which I think we're > > > > planning > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > implement, and which should be as core as File is now, is > > also > > > > > > heavily > > > > > > > > > promises-based. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we move to having the entire cordova.js built using > > > > browserify > > > > > > > where > > > > > > > > > > every plugin gets to contribute to the JS that goes into > > it - > > > > > yes I > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > > > see > > > > > > > > > > this solving this use-case as well. But that also seems > to > > me > > > > > like > > > > > > a > > > > > > > > much > > > > > > > > > > larger and much more controversial change. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether you are for or against promises - they are > already > > > > here. > > > > > > They > > > > > > > > > > exists natively on most latest mobile webviews, and every > > > > vendor > > > > > > has > > > > > > > > > > committed to adding them. And they are being used in > *most* > > > new > > > > > > specs > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > > I've seen (sockets, filesystem, permissions, service > > worker, > > > > > fetch) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any concrete downsides to putting Promises > > polyfill > > > > > right > > > > > > > in > > > > > > > > > > cordova-js? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as the promise doesn't clobber the native > > > implementation, > > > > > if > > > > > > it > > > > > > > > > exists, and we can remove it completely from platforms when > > > they > > > > > > don't > > > > > > > > need > > > > > > > > > it anymore, it seems to me like a small price for having > this > > > > > > available > > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > all platforms. (Other opinions vary, I'm sure, though) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Joe Bowser < > > > bows...@gmail.com> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to userland. I see other approaches causing more > > > problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW: The only time I use promises is when the platform > > > > > explicitly > > > > > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > > > > > it, and right now that's just MozillaView. While I > think > > > it > > > > > > looks > > > > > > > > > > awesome, > > > > > > > > > > > I view Promises as a luxury right now and not a > standard > > > > > feature > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also really wish specs wouldn't rely on code that > only > > > > exists > > > > > > on > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > > very > > > > > > > > > > > latest browsers. It just makes life harder on people > who > > > have > > > > > to > > > > > > > > > > implement > > > > > > > > > > > stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
