Hello, Currently - Android extensions sources, implementing W3C API specifications, are hosted in Crosswalk source repository - Native Linux extensions sources, implementing both Tizen and W3C API specifications, are hosted in tizen-extensions-crosswalk (t-e-c).
Especially the latter created confusion at least among testers. Given e.g. the bluetooth, or callhistory, or telephony, or messaging etc extension, is it implementing the Tizen spec or W3C spec? The spec is different, therefore the js part is different, therefore they should go to different extensions. Then we will end up having two callhistory, two messaging, two telephony etc extensions all hosted in t-e-c, which is a mess. That mess will grow unbearable once W3C will specify a Bluetooth API, very likely different from the Tizen spec... so far we have 3 backends, and 1.5 js file for Bluetooth, but then we'd have 2 js files, i.e. 2 extensions. After talking with Thiago S, Raphael, and Ilkka, I would like to propose the following, and expect your + or - votes and comments: 1.) split the t-e-c into two repositories, - one purely for Tizen-specific API spec implementations, also allowing Tizen specific ways in extensions handling (utilities / common logging, app/user data handling etc) - and the new one for other native Linux extensions, which mainly implement W3C specifications with mainly upstream Linux dependencies, usable also on desktop (e.g. including all Bluetooth profile related functionality from telephony, messaging, contacts etc). 2.) along similar lines, split the (W3C) Android extension sources from Crosswalk to a new repository and implement the necessary changes to extensions deployment. To start, I would implement 1) first, which is the bigger need, but 2.) would make things cleaner, too and waits for a voluntary implementer. Also, I'd propose a slight name change after which we'd have names like: crosswalk, purely for crosswalk crosswalk-extensions-android, for W3C/Android crosswalk-extensions-tizen, for Tizen/Tizen crosswalk-extensions-linux, for W3C/Linux [ other extensions could follow the naming pattern ] and we'd let tizen-extensions-crosswalk obsolete. IMHO the sooner we do this the better. Thoughts? Best regards, Zoltan _______________________________________________ Crosswalk-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.crosswalk-project.org/mailman/listinfo/crosswalk-dev
