+1 to making it a platform dependency and keeping it as a plugin.
On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 2:37 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > I love that idea. Makes transitioning easy. > On Jul 2, 2013 1:38 PM, "Michal Mocny" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > perhaps platforms should support plugin dependencies? > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:57 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > Tyler - remote web inspector works for iOS 6 on device, not just in the > > > simulator. > > > > > > I removed the logger since it got moved to the cordova-plugin-console > > repo. > > > To be clear, is the proposal here to delete that repo? > > > > > > I'd like to see it remain *not* in core only because it can be written > > as a > > > plugin. Let's just have it installed by default by CLI? > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Tyler Wilson < > [email protected] > > > >wrote: > > > > > > > Another view: what percentage of developers use the console.log API > > > during > > > > development? I would think that the vast majority do. So why add a > step > > > for > > > > a feature that most developers use or need? My Cordova work has been > > > mostly > > > > done on-device, since I am using a custom plug-in that requires the > > > > hardware. So until there is a way to debug the JS on-device, I am > > highly > > > > dependent on the console.log functionality. > > > > > > > > So basically +1 keep in core for me. > > > > > > > > Thank you, > > > > Tyler > > > > > > > > On Jul 2, 2013, at 3:22 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Its a good point about ios6+. I can't imagine anyone is developing > > for > > > > > anything less (other than corodva@<=2.9 legacy support). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 11:44 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected] > > > > > > wrote: > > > > >> To answer the question of why we may want to leave it out: > > > > >> > > > > >> - If you are using remote debugging on ios6+ you don't need it > > > > >> - Our log wrapper has been repeatedly less functional than the > > system > > > > >> implementation (though we do fix these issues as they are found) > > > > >> > > > > >> But that does not mean I am arguing against leaving it in by > > default. > > > > >> Idealist me says 3.0.0 should move everything that can be a plugin > > out > > > > to > > > > >> a plugin. Pragmatist me says this is pretty safe/useful in core. > > +0 > > > > vote > > > > >> here either way. > > > > >> > > > > >> Perhaps we could have a set of "default" plugins that are > installed, > > > but > > > > >> can be un-installed? This would give us best of both worlds. > > > > >> > > > > >> -Michal > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Tue, Jul 2, 2013 at 1:01 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >> > > > > >>> The only one I can think of is a production environment to try to > > > save > > > > on > > > > >>> a few kb of footprint and a few initialization cycles. I don't > > think > > > > it's > > > > >>> worth removing entirely from core, though. Instead, try to make > the > > > > >>> built-in Logger plugin as easily removable as possible. > > > > >>> > > > > >>> On 7/2/13 9:57 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > >>> > > > > >>>> Are there a scenarios where it would be good to not have Logger > in > > > an > > > > >>>> app, such as permissions, footprint, or just not needing any > > logging > > > > >>>> functionality? I'm having a tough time thinking of any, so I'd > > also > > > > say: > > > > >>>> +1 leaving Logger in core > > > > >>>> > > > > >>> > > > > >>> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
