As I suggested in the pull request comments, this would really make sense to update bin/create script either by enhancing it with additional argument to embed the CordovaLib with newly created projects or even make this behavior a default one.
p. 2012/9/27 Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>: > Suppose you have 5 projects that depend on 2.1, and 3 that depend on 2.0. > > One big difference between the two options is that for the 2nd option, > you'd have 8 copies of Cordova, whereas for the first option you'd have > only two. > > I think getting the correct workflow set up with Xcode workspaces will be > quite cumbersome though, and not something that will be easy for us to do > with tooling. We'd pretty much have to rely on documentation to tell people > how to drag multiple projects into their own workspace. > > I think maybe another key point is that CordovaLib is really small, and > will get even smaller if/when we remove the core plugins from it. In this > model, the majority of the code will be pluginstalled into users' projects > anyways, so it won't be a bit deal to have a bunch of copies of CordovaLib > around. > > The model that pwalczyszyn is using is to copy the CordovaLib directory > into each project's directory, similar to how we have a "cordova" directory > that we copy into it. Taken from his pull requests comments: > > MyProject >> -- cordova >> -- MyProject >> ---- CordovaLib >> ------ CordovaLib.xcodeproj >> ---- Plugins >> ---- Resources >> ---- .... >> -- MyProject.xcodeproj >> -- www > > > Having CordovaLib a sibling of Plugins does make sense in this model I > think. Either that, or have it up one level. > > > To implement this, we'll need to change our bin/create script to copy in > the CordovaLib directory. Not too hard. > > For upgrades, how will we address this though? Just add documentation > telling users to delete the old directory and copy over the new one? The > steps would be: > cp -r path/to/new/cordova/CordovaLib MyProject > path/to/new/cordova/bin/update_cordova_subproject MyProject > MyProject/CordovaLib > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 10:16 AM, Dave Johnson > <dave.c.john...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> +1 >> >> On Thursday, September 27, 2012, Mike Reinstein wrote: >> >> > Agree on all points with Brian. >> > >> > On Thu, Sep 27, 2012 at 6:34 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io<javascript:;>> >> > wrote: >> > >> > > > Global dependancies? It's a library, why would you not be dependent >> on >> > > it? >> > > > >> > > >> > > We're talking about global deps vs local deps. Not whether or not >> you'll >> > > have a dependency! >> > > >> > > >> > > > Standardize on the apis and not the files. >> > > > >> > > >> > > Uh, ok sure, not sure I understand? >> > > >> > > It only takes a few weeks of ruby (and/or python) dev to see where >> global >> > > packages become ambushes for epic fail. Node learned from this and >> > > explicitly created lexically scoped packages. Typically when you ship >> > > projects you want to have the dependencies bundled to minimize issues. >> > > >> > > See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dependency_hell >> > > >> > > >> > > Not to mention the extra complexity of #2, and multiple out of sync >> > > > project issues. >> > > > >> > > >> > > I do not see where this creates complexity. It reduces it. I have a >> > project >> > > that I want up-do-date. It has a dependency on 2.1.0. I have another >> > > project I do not want to update running 2.0.0: no problem. If I have a >> > > global dependency: problem! >> > > >> > > The other issue here is the requirement of having your library >> > > a separate concern for the end user project. When I want to build a >> > project >> > > from another repo it requires me to install the correct version of the >> > > dependency. With option 2 the library is a part of the project and no >> > > installer step is required. Again: reduced complexity. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > I originally moved the codebase to a library and created the template >> > > > over 2 years ago, so I may be blind to the benefits of #2, but to me >> > > > this makes our library become a boilerplate... am I wrong? >> > > > >> > > >> > > Do not see how this is related either. >> > > >> > >>
