It could make sense to store both for the case where restoring from src fails. For example, if the path to a local folder no longer exists, what do you use to restore? In that case you could use the version as a fallback?
Thanks, Edna Morales From: "Gorkem Ercan" <gorkem.er...@gmail.com> To: "dev [dev@cordova.apache.org]" <dev@cordova.apache.org> Date: 03/30/2015 10:45 AM Subject: Re: Question about plugin/platform --save: src vs version? On 29 Mar 2015, at 23:11, Tim Barham wrote: > Hi - I'm looking for input on this issue: For the plugin/platform > --save feature, there's currently an inconsistency between how we > store the information in config.xml for platforms vs plugins. > > > > For platforms, we have a 'version' attribute where we store either the > source location or the version: if the platform was added by > specifying a specific location (git repository, local folder, package > file etc), we store that in the 'version' attribute. Otherwise we > store the actual version. > > > > For plugins, these two values are stored separately - source location > in the 'src' attribute and version in the 'version' attribute. Note > however that when we restore a plugin, we ignore the 'version' > attribute if there is a 'src' attribute. > > This comes from the history of the implementation ( as these things do). In the old experimental save implementation, we had 3 parameters, namely, version, url and installPath, and for every plugin we expected one of them to exist. During the effort for npmizing the save functionality the contribution for platforms and plugins were done separately hence the unmatching attributes. So there is no real technical reason for doing one way or the other and if you are willing to unify them that is fantastic. > > I'd like to make these consistent. My first thought was to support > 'version' and 'src' for platforms like we currently do for plugins. > But since we always ignore the version if we have a src, I'm not sure > we actually gain anything by doing that. Storing them in different > attributes is perhaps clearer, but storing both implies we make use of > both, which we don't. Also, the code ends up being simpler overall if > we just store whichever we care about in the version attribute. > I personally prefer to clearly label data in case user needs to read/modify the config.xml, seeing a git url on the version attribute still puzzles me. But I am fine with either way. Whatever you decide please remember to support/migrate the current attributes so that we do not end up with stale entries on config.xml > > > Any thoughts either way? > > > > Thanks! > > > > Tim --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
