Aah, I didn't realize that CordovaInterface was meant to be implemented
other than by DroidGap. Sorry about that. Weird that projects would even
compile without having the new method though.

Once the tests are fixed up, we should definitely add running them to the
list of release steps.


On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Nevermind....it's kinda bad but it's not minor release bad.
>
> Basically, adding the thread pool method requirement to the
> CordovaInterface is what broke this.  For some reason when you don't have a
> thread pool, Cordova silently fails instead of dumping core all over the
> place.  Is it possible that we can get plugins to get the thread pool from
> elsewhere, or does it have to be in the Activity?
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 1:08 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hey
> >
> > I just started fixing up our broken JUnit Tests, and I discovered that
> the
> > recent refactors broke the CordovaWebView standalone component.  This
> means
> > that anyone who is using the CordovaWebView as a standalone component
> > should probably not upgrade to 2.2.0 and that we'll have to issue a 2.2.1
> > release to address this issue.
> >
> > It seems that for some reason deviceready is no longer firing.  I think
> > this may have to do with the recent changes to plugins as well as the
> > addition of a thread pool.  I'm going to commit the fixes to the tests
> > today, but you can recreate the issue by pulling down this debug repo,
> > putting it in Eclipse and making it use Cordova as a library.
> >
> > https://github.com/infil00p/CordovaActionView/tree/debug_version
> >
> > Also, you can debug this using the default activity on the test project,
> > although the test project still needs a lot of cleaning to be done.
> >
> > It sucks that we missed this, but we really need to make sure we don't
> > break the tests when we do a refactor.
> >
> > I'll add more details to the bug soon.  This harsh sucks, because I don't
> > think this will be an easy fix. :(
> >
> > Joe
> >
>

Reply via email to