Copying the plugin.xml into the platform's project somewhere sounds like a good idea to me.
I don't think we'd need to look in the config.xml to see what's installed then. We can just look at what plugin.xml files exist. On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > I'm wary of creating an additional manifest.. > > What if we came up with a convention for storing each plugin's plugin.xml > within the native project structure that the plugin got installed into? It > IS extra space needed, but a few kb per plugin doesn't seem so bad (this > is just my naïve first-pass type of brainstorming for this stuff) > > I see a few benefits: > > - Can then use <plugin> or <feature> tags inside the config.xml to > determine which plugins are installed > - Can trace back to the plugin's plugin.xml file based on the name and/or > value in these tags (based on whatever convention we come up with storing > the .xml file, as I suggested above). This way on each plugin install or > removal, we can detect collisions. > - can use plugman on its own on a per-project basis > - since we can go from config.xml -> all the plugin.xmls, this gives us a > start at dependency management > > Let's keep this train going! I feel we're getting somewhere here > > On 3/14/13 7:35 AM, "Braden Shepherdson" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I'm working on a high-level what-not-how sort of document for the whole > >plugin tools story, and this is something I keep coming back to. It's > >looking like we'll need to know what plugins are installed and where files > >have been placed where. This is important for uninstalling and also for > >updating the iOS project files. > > > >If we do need a manifest of that kind, it should absolutely be a shared > >format between plugman and cordova-cli. Or perhaps more precisely, for > >anything dealing at the level of files, cordova-cli should be calling > >plugman, which would deal with the files and update the manifest. I'm not > >thrilled about having such metadata, but it's hard to use the filesystem > >as > >the source of truth here. > > > >Thoughts? > > > >Braden > > > > > >On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 3:21 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> On 3/12/13 5:26 PM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > >> >One possible solution: Have JS-only plugins add a <plugin> tag with a > >>name > >> >but no value. > >> > >> Thinking more generally here, as Anis said, the problem here is > >> dependencies. I think determining how aware plugman needs to be of the > >> project is important. Pretty sure plugman needs to: > >> > >> A) know which plugins are installed > >> B) able to get a reference to each plugin's config file, to be able to > >> warn of things like collisions > >> > >> Does this sound right? > >> > >> > >
