I will take a look Shaz. I'll update that in a separate thread where we can put more discussion into task details and separation of work.
On 4/7/13 12:57 PM, "Anis KADRI" <[email protected]> wrote: >CB-2727 && CB-2719 <https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2719> are >resolved shaz (in master not future). I will take care of CB-2717 && >CB-2718 > this week. > > >On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Shazron <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> >> > >> > >>
