On Thu, Mar 21, 2013 at 2:29 PM, Michael Brooks <mich...@michaelbrooks.ca>wrote:
> +1 Fil's outlined design. > > I'm still not convinced of what Anis and Andrew are in favour of. Having > each script do more will make it more difficult for common results across > all platforms. > > I really like Anis's suggestion of just four scripts. What's the motivation > > for having many scripts? Having fewer will dramatically reduce copy & > paste > > bugs. It will also aid discoverability (since you'll get --help instead > of > > just "ls" and infer from the name what they do). > > > The motivation for having many scripts is that there is a single entry > point for a single action. Each action is discrete. Either a platform > supports `deploy-emulator` or doesn't. If we have a single `run` > entry-point, it becomes confusing whether a platform supports all > requirements of the `run` action. > > I feel the code repetition is also a weak argument. We are defining > entry-point scripts. You can refactor out the common routines (e.g. build) > into a helper script that can be invoked by multiple scripts. As far as I > know, this is possible in bash, batch, and Windows Script Hosting. > I guess this topic will need a vote to follow the Apache Way. We've been talking about/implementing/changing these scripts for a long time and we can't seem to come to a complete agreement. > > ripple should be a separate option and not a separate command in my > > opinion. To simplify things and if everyone agrees we can ignore the > `run` > > command flow above and launch ripple by default and ask users to specify > > options if they want to deploy and run to a particular device/emulator. > > > I feel Ripple has no place in the platform-specific scripts. I love Ripple, > but Ripple belongs is a higher-level tool such as Cordova CLI. The > platform-specific scripts are meant to deal with platform-specific > functions. > I don't have a strong opinion on this. So I could agree with you that this Ripple could be a higher-level tool. > > Michael > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 8:22 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > I liked the idea you mentioned earlier with having one wrapper script, > > that way there is one entry point for the given commands for the needed > > functionality. Then it doesn't matter what underlying scripts actually do > > the work. > > > > Then our only focus would be on the commands and not so much the name of > > the scripts. > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:36 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > wrote: > > > > > I really like Anis's suggestion of just four scripts. What's the > > motivation > > > for having many scripts? Having fewer will dramatically reduce copy & > > paste > > > bugs. It will also aid discoverability (since you'll get --help instead > > of > > > just "ls" and infer from the name what they do). > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Ya ya ya we're all on agreement on this specific issue. The > underlying > > > > platform scripts can be used regardless of whether you're using > > > > cordova-cli or not. > > > > > > > > On 3/20/13 3:51 PM, "Anis KADRI" <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 3:43 PM, Benn Mapes <benn.ma...@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> I know that sounds > > > > >> like a lot > > > > >> of scripts but we're building them for the cordova-cli to use, > so i > > > > >>like > > > > >> the idea of breaking > > > > >> them out so each script does a *very specific* task with as > > > > >>little-to-no > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > >No we're not. cordova-cli is a cool tool that people can use but it > > > should > > > > >not be the only way of building Cordova apps in my opinion. > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
