Ah, I didn't understand that part, I thought they were using their own content provider.
Yes, camera plugin will need a rewrite, but I don't think we have another choice El martes, 26 de julio de 2016, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> escribió: > The FileProvider class is provided by the Android Compat library. If we > don't use Android Compat, we'd have to write the provider, and re-inventing > the wheel is worse than having to use the FileProvider. It's looking more > and more like we're going to have to completely re-write Camera because > it's dependent on real file locations instead of the garbage that Google is > making us use. > > On Tue, Jul 26, 2016 at 11:35 AM, julio cesar sanchez < > [email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > The blog talks about "fixing" it using a content provider, how can it be > > fixed with android-compat? > > > > > > El martes, 26 de julio de 2016, Joe Bowser <[email protected] > <javascript:;>> escribió: > > > > > Hey > > > > > > It looks like we're hit by this change in Android, which makes it so > that > > > we can no longer use file providers. There's an easy fix, but it's > not a > > > pretty one. We're going to have to add Android-Compat as a dependency > > for > > > Cordova. This is really bad, and could cause a lot of things to screw > up > > > horribly when it comes to third party plugins that also use this as a > > > dependency. > > > > > > > > > > > > https://inthecheesefactory.com/blog/how-to-share-access-to-file-with-fileprovider-on-android-nougat/en > > > > > > A part of me is temped to think that the Android team did this on > purpose > > > to try and break Cordova, since content providers and content URIs > aren't > > > even remotely valid uses of the web and we've been dealing with broken > > > content providers ever since we started. I personally hate this, but > > it's > > > the only way we can move forward at all. > > > > > > Anyone have any thoughts on this? > > > > > > Joe > > > > > >
