Fil, I have some issues filed for plugman: http://cl.ly/O7Th I'd like to contribute but since we have many cooks here, I don't know if I will be treading on some code that is going to change anyway. Some of them filed are critical for iOS, but not labeled with 'future'. Can you take a quick glance and see where the issues fit in the scheme of things?
On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:14 AM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > To summarize: > > - yes plugman needs more work before we can utilize standalone plugins. > > We have several committers working on this. There are issues filed in JIRA > (mainly assigned to Braden, Tim and me). With this being the blocker to > moving to a bare bridge implementation of Cordova, anyone is free to jump > in and help there :). All of the plugman must-have features are tagged > with "future" so do a search fro that in the JIRA if you want to help out. > > - people concerned about doing too much right now > > To reiterate Brian's point, let's take it slow. Go one plugin at a time. > We have 3-4 months before the slated 3.0 release. > > - code living in two spots at once > > This one is tricky, but IMO code living in two spots isn't a massive deal > at this point. The benefits to having plugin code, until we hit 3.0, live > in two spots at once is: > > * for 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, users of cordova will still get the standard APIs > which they expect > * we have testable plugin code that can help the development of plugman > and cli > > The downside is clear: code in two spots. As long as the structure of the > plugin code in the plugin repo is solid (I.e. Has a plugin.xml, and base > functionality is provided for the native bits), I would be satisfied. That > would be good enough for plugins being used as test fixtures. > > Finally, once we are ready to remove all of the plugins from the core > repos (say, a few months down the road, around the time of 3.0.0rc1), we > can do it in one fell swoop, and move over any bug fixes / features landed > in the core repos for the plugins into the plugin repos. > > My $0.02. > > On 4/7/13 5:47 AM, "Andrew Grieve" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >I like the idea, but I think we should make sure that it will work before > >pulling out the plugins. E.g. plugin JS undergo a different transformation > >with the new system than with Jake. I think they'll function fine if we > >pluginstall it into our project *templates*, but for people performing > >upgrades, it'll be more complicated. Another tricky bit is ARC. We > >previously discussed holding off changing the default template to ARC > >until > >3.0. Until we do though, core plugins will not compile if added to them. > >Instead, they need to be added to the CordovaLib project, but their assets > >still need to be added to their top-level project. > > > >I think we can still get to the state where we bundle in plugins during > >packaging, but I want to avoid having code alive in two spots at once if > >possible. E.g. if we move out the java code for Accelerometer, then we > >should delete it from cordova-android. Before we do this though, plugman > >needs a bit more work on it and and also on the coho tool. E.g. plugman > >right now only works with plugin JS if you're using the "future" branch. > > > > > >On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >> Those should be rolled back in by the COHO tool (using the plugman tool) > >> for the phonegap dist. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:24 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > I agree that moving plugins into repos isn't tied to API audits, but > >> > doesn't moving plugins gradually prevent our ability to do releases? > >>E.g. > >> > 2.7 is missing two plugins since they were moved into different repos. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 4:20 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > >> > > >> > > That synopsis on the wiki was super helpful Joe. I think we should > >>stop > >> > > thinking we have to do EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. We do not need to > >>audit > >> > any > >> > > apis. We do not need to update anything before moving into plugins. > >> > > > >> > > We need to slowly move a plugin at a time, keep their current APIs, > >>and > >> > > methodically move to the next API. > >> > > > >> > > Anything that does not fit: don't move it out. We'll deal w/ it > >>later. > >> It > >> > > looks like everything 'with specs' can be moved with relative ease. > >> Start > >> > > there. Worry about the rest when you get there. I suspect that is > >> plenty > >> > to > >> > > try to achieve in the meantime. > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > >> > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> > >>wrote: > >> > > > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Max Woghiren <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > > > >> > > > > In Android, I've split out common File code into a FileHelper > >> class. > >> > > > It's > >> > > > > not a plugin, and will be exposed to developers. This is the > >>only > >> > > > > shared-code example I know of, but if we find others (via the > >> > > visibility > >> > > > > removal test), we can similarly pull out the common code. > >> > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > There's a lot of code that's meant to be public on CordovaWebView, > >> > > > since CordovaWebView is supposed to be a stand-alone component > >>that's > >> > > > embeddable in other Android projects. We really need to decide > >>what > >> > > > to expose. I also want to see DroidGap paired down and gone, > >>since I > >> > > > don't want people messing with anything in that class at all. > >> > > > > >> > > > Other than that, I can't think of any Android code that should be > >> > > > public. That being said, I think we're getting off-topic. I > >>think we > >> > > > need to start on the dreaded API audit that we've been putting > >>off. > >> > > > It's clear that every plugin will need to be updated to the new > >>spec > >> > > > before we do this exercise. > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >
