Yep, agree. Until we can actually come up with something better, we need to support Media.
On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Becky Gibson <gibson.be...@gmail.com> wrote: > Well, we still need an API/plugin for playing audio. The w3c spec is > pretty involved. In the past Simon has suggested we try to unify around > HTML audio. At any rate I don't think we can just get rid of it. > > Sent from my iPhone > > On Feb 6, 2013, at 2:52 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > +1 > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 2:41 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > > > >> So instead of revisiting it just let it die and kick up a new one for > web > >> audio? > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > >> wrote: > >>> So... back to cordova-plugin-media then? > >>> > >>> > >>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:59 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >>> > >>>> exactly! And plugins, I think, will end up being independently > >>>> versioned so if ppl want old and busted they can have it. =P > >>>> > >>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > >>>> wrote: > >>>>> SGTM. First step towards deprecation is turning it into a plugin so > >> that > >>>>> people can not install it :) > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:41 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> I was thinkin we'd just deprecate the media spec altogether for a > >>>>>> starter/subset of the web audio api (perhaps polyfil the audio > >> element > >>>>>> while we're at it). > >>>>>> > >>>>>> .... should we kick up a thread about that? > >>>>>> > >>>>>> (Added file transfer to the non-spec plugins.) > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 10:22 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >>>>>>> Totally makes sense to separate them. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> File is spec-based, FileTransfer is not. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On 2/6/13 10:16 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I thought FileTransfer was a part of File. Maybe it makes sense to > >>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>> them though? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Becky Gibson > >>>>>>>> <gibson.be...@gmail.com>wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Yes, I shouldn't have confused the issue about audio and media! > >> I > >>>>>>>>> guess I > >>>>>>>>> just get annoyed when I go to mobile spec and it is labelled as > >>>> "audio" > >>>>>>>>> :-) > >>>>>>>>> We can leave it as cordova-plugin-media so it matches the JS api > >>>> name. > >>>>>>>>> Although, I think we are creating the same type of confusion if > >> we > >>>>>>>>> rename > >>>>>>>>> capture to media-capture but I don't have a strong opinion on > >> that. > >>>>>>>>> Plus, > >>>>>>>>> I see we are doing that for acceleration and compass as well. I > >>>> guess > >>>>>>>>> now > >>>>>>>>> is as good a time as any to match the W3C names! > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Also, where is FileTransfer? > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Andrew Grieve < > >>>> agri...@chromium.org> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Great! I like the spec-based names. I think I have the opposite > >>>>>>>>> thought > >>>>>>>>> as > >>>>>>>>>> Becky. Our current media plugin doesn't follow the WebAudio > >> spec > >>>> at > >>>>>>>>> all. > >>>>>>>>>> How about we call it cordova-media for now since that's what > >> it's > >>>>>>>>> called > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>> our docs, and then if we ever implement WebAudio, then we'll > >> have > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>> name > >>>>>>>>>> available for that. Maybe we should even put it the spec-less > >>>>>> category > >>>>>>>>>> (unless there's some older spec that it was based off of?) > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> > >> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Just kicked up a quick wiki page to help vett this. I'm > >>>> thinking we > >>>>>>>>>>> try to stay as close to the spec names as possible. > >> http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/Core%20Plugin%20Name%20Proposal > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Becky Gibson > >>>>>>>>> <gibson.be...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> My only comment would be about media. Currently it just > >>>> supports > >>>>>>>>> audio > >>>>>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps codova-plugin-audio makes more sense and we can > >> leave > >>>>>>>>> media > >>>>>>>>>> open > >>>>>>>>>>>> for the rewrite. Although, I do realize the api is > >> labelled > >>>>>>>>> "media" > >>>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps it would be too confusing to change the repo name. > >>>> Just > >>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>> thought..... > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 1:38 PM, Andrew Grieve > >>>>>>>>> <agri...@chromium.org> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Before I go ahead with this, let's agree upon the repo > >> names > >>>> / > >>>>>>>>> which > >>>>>>>>>>>>> plugins to include. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Here's the proposed list: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Repos to create: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-accelerometer > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-battery > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-camera > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-capture > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-compass > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-contacts > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-device > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-file > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-geolocation > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-globalization > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-logger > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-media > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-networkstatus > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-notification > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-splashscreen > >>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-inappbrowser > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Note that I have device and network status in this list. > >>>> Plugins > >>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>> delay > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ondeviceready just add themselves to > >>>>>>>>> channel.deviceReadyChannelsArray. > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> Plugins *not* getting their own Repo: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> blackberry/plugin/java/app > >>>>>>>>>>>>> android/plugin/android/app > >>>>>>>>>>>>> android/plugin/android/storage > >>>>>>>>>>>>> errgen/plugin/errgen > >>>>>>>>>>>>> ios/plugin/ios/console (seems like this should be merged > >> into > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>>>>> logger > >>>>>>>>>>>>> plugin) > >>>>>>>>>>>>> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/DOMStorage > >>>>>>>>>>>>> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/XHRPatch > >>>>>>>>>>>>> windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone/console > >>>>>>>>>>>>> iOS's CDVLocalStorage.m > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Andrew Grieve > >>>>>>>>> <agri...@chromium.org > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Great! Sounds like an agreement :). I'll file an INFRA > >> to > >>>> get > >>>>>>>>> them > >>>>>>>>>>>>> created. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 9:44 PM, Shazron < > >> shaz...@gmail.com > >>>>> > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 on separate repos. It's the sane choice. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 11:53 PM, Jesse > >>>>>>>>> <purplecabb...@gmail.com> > >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1, I agree on the separate repositories. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I still contend that nothing should need to be > >> 'built' > >>>> and > >>>>>>>>> there > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> be > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> NO dependencies on the plugins from cordova-js, ( > >> aside > >>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>> device.js + > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> network.js which are both required pre device ready, > >>>> and I > >>>>>>>>> think > >>>>>>>>>>>>> should > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> remain in the cordova-js repo ) > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:46 PM, Anis KADRI < > >>>>>>>>> anis.ka...@gmail.com > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> +1 for separate repositories. Should take a bit > >> longer > >>>>>>>>> than > >>>>>>>>>>> normal > >>>>>>>>>>>>> to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> package a release but not too long especially if > >> the > >>>>>> repos > >>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>> pulled > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a local source (ie no network overhead). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'd be ok to ship a set of default plugins and give > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>> ability > >>>>>>>>>>> for > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> people > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to build their 'own' Cordova. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Brian LeRoux < > >>>> b...@brian.io > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I'm in favor of discreet plugin repos. It > >> shouldn't > >>>>>>>>> effect > >>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>>>>> release > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> if we automate install/remove and add to the Coho > >>>>>>>>> tool... > >>>>>>>>>>> though > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> perhaps this is a naive assumption. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 1:44 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >>>>>>>>>>>>> agri...@chromium.org > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thought it'd be worth having a discussion > >> around > >>>>>>>>> whether > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>> want a > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separate > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo for each core plugin or not. > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As far as I can see, we can either have all > >> core > >>>>>>>>> plugins > >>>>>>>>> in > >>>>>>>>>>> one > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> repo, > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have each in it's own and call them: > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-file > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-network > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cordova-plugin-media > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> etc... > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I think my preference would be to have them as > >>>> their > >>>>>>>>> own > >>>>>>>>>>> repos > >>>>>>>>>>>>> so > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will be easier to add/remove lists of plugins > >> to > >>>> the > >>>>>>>>> "which > >>>>>>>>>>> ones > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> core" > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> list. It will also let us version them > >> separately > >>>> (if > >>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>> want to > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this). > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The downside is that it may take longer to > >>>> perform a > >>>>>>>>>> release? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> we > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> even > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> bundle the plugins with releases anyways > >> though? > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> @purplecabbage > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> risingj.com > >> >
