A package namespace is not a part of the API? Are we saying we in Cordova draw the semantic line at a method signature? (Its certainly not a normal view on what defines an API. Anyhow! Super not important.)
One more time! Specifics. What packages are changing in precisely what files? Right now we're discussing a completely undefined scope in light of an obviously standard best practice. On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 12:14 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > -1 to shims. A plugin's java package name shouldn't be considered a part of > its API. That's why there is a mapping in the config.xml. > > Shouldn't have to change any require() statements, or any JS at all. Those > use plugin IDs, not java namespaces. > > Replace-all on the package statement at the top of the file, and change the > reference in plugin.xml. I'd put this change in the "polish" category. > That's what we should be doing now, no? > > > > > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:49 PM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: > >> +1 wait until 3.1. >> >> +1 add shims for less breakage >> >> Also worth pointing out that we'll need to add this to the deprecation >> list on the wiki >> >> On 7/15/13 11:30 AM, "Simon MacDonald" <simon.macdon...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >The reason things broke back then was we didn't leave in shims to point >> >anyone compiling against com.phonegap.api to org.apache.cordova.api. That >> >was quickly corrected. >> > >> >I agree with the package name change but with 3.0 shipping this week(?). >> >It >> >should probably wait until the next version. >> > >> > >> >Simon Mac Donald >> >http://hi.im/simonmacdonald >> > >> > >> >On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> > >> >> No. You are proposing an API change. A package is most certainly a >> >> part of the API! When we moved from `com.phonegap` to `org.apache` >> >> there was a huge outcry b/c it broke all existing community plugins. >> >> >> >> I'm completely open to changing stuff for 3.0 but, again, what >> >> specifically are you proposing we change? >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> >> >>wrote: >> >> > I agree. The only downside I see is that it will be hard to dissociate >> >> core >> >> > plugins from other but I don't think it's really that important. Also >> >> > because it's not a giant change it could happen for 3.0. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Max Woghiren <m...@chromium.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I'm not proposing any API changes in this email; example (1) does >> >> mention >> >> >> the relocation of FileHelper.java, but that's more to illustrate the >> >> >> benefits of repackaging the plugins. >> >> >> >> >> >> I would think the plugin package change should happen *for* 3.0, >> >>before >> >> >> people actually start using the plugins all bundled in one package. >> >> It's >> >> >> not a giant change. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 1:16 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > I think all of this makes good sense but will have to land sometime >> >> >> > post 3.0 as that we're pretty much in the final stretch now anyhow. >> >> >> > Which APIs are you specifically proposing we change? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Mon, Jul 15, 2013 at 9:14 AM, Max Woghiren <m...@chromium.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > > On Android, all Cordova plugins are in the package >> >> >> > org.apache.cordova.core. >> >> >> > > It makes sense to put each plugin into its own package. Aside >> >>from >> >> >> > 3.0's >> >> >> > > conceptual shift into "plugins as completely individual entities" >> >> and >> >> >> the >> >> >> > > fact that plugins aren't really "core", here's some rationale: >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > 1. If two plugins have a file with the same name, we'll avoid >> >> >> > > collisions. For instance, core Cordova has FileHelper.java. >> >> This >> >> >> is >> >> >> > the >> >> >> > > wrong place for it in 3.0 and we'd like to move it to the >> >>plugins >> >> >> > that use >> >> >> > > it (removing unused methods in each plugin's version). >> >>However, >> >> >> this >> >> >> > will >> >> >> > > lead to a collision in apps that use two of these plugins, >> >>since >> >> >> > they'll >> >> >> > > both be in the same package. >> >> >> > > 2. All plugin files will be separated into their packages in >> >>your >> >> >> IDE. >> >> >> > > This makes working on an individual plugin easier‹you can see >> >> the >> >> >> > > associated files at a glance. If I'm working on a plugin with >> >> >> > multiple >> >> >> > > files, I shouldn't have to hunt for related files to ensure >> >>I'm >> >> not >> >> >> > missing >> >> >> > > anything. >> >> >> > > 3. Since our plugins will be used as starting points for >> >> third-party >> >> >> > > plugins, we won't accidentally encourage plugin developers to >> >>use >> >> >> the >> >> >> > same >> >> >> > > namespace. >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > I would propose something like >> >> org.apache.cordova.plugin.<plugin_name>. >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >>
