If we can leave it in (but deprecated) in 2.0 that would be my preference.
On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > Brian, we're doing Android devs (potential plugin authors) a favor here, > trust me. > > 2.0 is our chance to break interfaces. > > Also, +1 to Bryce's comment re: get this change in for 1.9, deprecate the > .ctx member in 1.9 as well, and axe it in 2.0. > > On 6/18/12 12:15 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >>I'm of the opinion that native impl should *not* abstract the >>platforms at the plugin level. It breaks old plugins, which is fine, >>but for what benefit? Conceptual purity at that level will make it >>harder to recruit plugin authors from their respective navtive >>platforms. >> >>On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Michael Brooks >><mich...@michaelbrooks.ca> wrote: >>> If we are planning to rename the Cordova interface object, then we >>>should >>> do it for each platform in a consistent manner. There should be a parent >>> JIRA issue with sub-tasks for each Cordova platform. >>> >>> On Mon, Jun 18, 2012 at 11:50 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>>> Yeh "ctx" implies Context, especially for Android peoples, so +1 to >>>> renaming to something less Android-ey. >>>> >>>> On 6/18/12 11:45 AM, "Joe Bowser" <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Hey >>>> > >>>> >Since we're approaching 2.0 and since part of the goals of 2.0 is to >>>> >improve the plugin architecture, I'm wondering if we should take the >>>> >opportunity to give the CordovaInterface variable on Plugin.java a >>>>name >>>> >other than ctx, which on Android usually refers to a context. The >>>>reason >>>> >for this is the fact that there's a use case where the >>>>CordovaInterface >>>> >may >>>> >not be a Context. I propose that we change the name to cordova. >>>> > >>>> >I'm not sure if this needs a JIRA ticket or not. >>>> > >>>> >Any thoughts? >>>> > >>>> >Joe >>>> >>>> >
