Below is the roadmap based on my personal imagine: Extensions dev of internal developers-> summarize the best format of organizing code -> separate binding routine and customized code -> auto-gen -> formal Extensions dev of external developers and they don’t know what happening behind interface.
For me, it’s ok to revert it temporarily, if you really hate to insert a “debugger” , but, DON’T FORGET to patch it back. And, all the comments just represent my personal opinion. For me, I think it’s an advantage of Open Source project, everyone can try to understand what others are thinking through code reading, and voice your opinion through patch. From: Zhu, Yongsheng Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 1:13 PM To: Wang, Peter H; crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org Subject: RE: [crosswalk] Use empty name to inject JS to avoid revealing code. (#828) May we should hide injected code by default but leaves an option to show injected code for the purpose of debugging? I think it’s valuable for SysApps developers. Yongsheng From: Crosswalk-dev [mailto:crosswalk-dev-boun...@lists.crosswalk-project.org] On Behalf Of Wang, Peter H Sent: Monday, October 28, 2013 1:10 PM To: crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org<mailto:crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org> Subject: [Crosswalk-dev] FW: [crosswalk] Use empty name to inject JS to avoid revealing code. (#828) Sorry, just forward a discussion of good topic regarding extension. From: Wang, Peter H Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 2:29 PM To: crosswalk-project/crosswalk; crosswalk-project/crosswalk Subject: RE: [crosswalk] Use empty name to inject JS to avoid revealing code. (#828) Oh, I see. You’re try to debug the code in your “*_api.js” and meet problem. Can you insert a “debugger” in your code? ( I’m considering make another path to block this way, haha ) And,… I’d like to share more deep details in my mind here. Actually, there should be two logic parts: binding routine and customized code, they are mixed in “*_api.js” so far. We need to find a good pattern of arranging code, through extension development practice. Then make the binding routine auto-generated (in another word, hidden from extension developer). If you are developing extension, I’d like to suggest to focus on that. “*_api.js” can work doesn’t means work done. We should try to make the code “formatted”, the best “format” will be the template of auto-gen. From: Hongbo Min [mailto:notificati...@github.com] Sent: Friday, October 25, 2013 1:54 PM To: crosswalk-project/crosswalk Cc: Wang, Peter H Subject: Re: [crosswalk] Use empty name to inject JS to avoid revealing code. (#828) It will generated by tools and developer just have to provide an IDL or json file. So, why they need to debug it? In Crosswalk extension, api developer should write the JS binding code even if some stub code is generated by tools. It is easy for app developer to look into the detailed API implementation (not only debug) if they wants, and would report issues they find. It is impossible for API implementation to be mature at the beginning. Well...whether app developer debug or not debug is our intuitive assumptions. Let's focus on one question: why to hide the JS code to make it hard to debug API implementation when writing a new API? — Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub<https://github.com/crosswalk-project/crosswalk/pull/828#issuecomment-27066898>.
_______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list Crosswalk-dev@lists.crosswalk-project.org https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
