So it looks like for iOS plugman support there is one outstanding issue Shaz has:
https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-2717 Re: default installation of iOS code into plugins folder. Braden & Anis can you comment? This looks like it would need a tweak in the spec so I would like to get other people's eyes on this. On 4/8/13 7:44 AM, "Shazron" <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks Anis and Fil! If you need help, I suppose you could assign some >starter issues so I can get a feel for the codebase > > >On Sun, Apr 7, 2013 at 5:33 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> 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" <anis.ka...@gmail.com> 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 <shaz...@gmail.com> 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 <f...@adobe.com> 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" <agri...@chromium.org> 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 <b...@brian.io> 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 >> >><agri...@chromium.org> >> >> > >> 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 <b...@brian.io> >>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 >><bows...@gmail.com >> > >> >> > >>wrote: >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > > > On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Max Woghiren < >> >> m...@chromium.org> >> >> > >> > 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. >> >> > >> > > > >> >> > >> > > >> >> > >> > >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >>
