Ya, the Node characters in this story that I'm talking w/ are dshaw, mikeal, izs, and joemccann. All pushing we go this route and YES its super easier than it sounds. =P
Agree on discovery getting a little harder but this isn't an exclusive move but rather an additive operation. That is to say, they want us to have a compatibility but in no way are saying we use the npm registry for our core plugins. So: package.json, install, and uninstall are the tricks to this pony. I think we can easily get consensus for moving to package.json using our current technique. I'll talk to them further about the install/uninstall business. The next version of Node will be shipping w/ the npm registry included so this is actually rather cool for us as the install would become: install node. On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 7:41 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: > I spoke with @dshaw about this and told him why it was (currently) not > an option for Cordova. > > Specifically (un)install actions and dependency management are > different. It seems like a a lot of overhead to get npm to do what > plugman (un)install does. > > Everything else is pretty much the same and moving from plugin.xml to > package.json won't hurt us I don't think. I guess we wouldn't be able > to do XSLTs to validate documents but...other than that it would be a > logical move. > > The other thing too is that npm is mainly for nodejs and/or javascript > packages and getting Cordova plugins in there can make search and > discovery harder. There are currently 36,472 NPMs as of this writing. > The counter-argument to this is that there are npm modules that use > native codes to execute. Some of them even require some third-party > interpreters (Ruby, Python, etc...). > > On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 4:28 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: >> I have a parallel conversation rolling w/ the node guys and they're >> hoping to convince us to move everything to the npm registry itself. >> (Or at least be compatible to do so.) >> >> I think this is a worthwhile goal but it does mean: >> >> - plugin.xml gets either deprecated for package.json or we continue >> tool that impedance mismatch >> - install on the npm side needs to learn about cordova (yes issac is >> open to this!) >> >> Did I miss anything Anis? >> >> Thoughts [larger group]? >> >> >> >> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 6:06 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Agree. >>> For the last point. There is a <keywords> tag added to the spec to >>> facilitate search. Has to be added by plugin author. >>> I am going to drop the current names for the registry and republish >>> them with the new convention. Unless anyone has any objections. We'll >>> implement that prefixing right after. >>> >>> On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 2:55 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> I think what would work is: >>>> >>>> - use ids to uniquely identify >>>> - prepending org.apache.cordova.core or w/e our core plugin namespace is >>>> as a fallback attempt to match makes sense >>>> - finally, for discovery/searching, we should do searches vs a plugin's >>>> <description> field and do our best to enforce good descriptions on >>>> plugins being submitted to the apache cordova registry >>>> >>>> On 7/29/13 1:13 PM, "Anis KADRI" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>>>Right but npm registry uses JSON not XML. I think prefixing core >>>>>plugins when no package name is provided is a good idea. >>>>> >>>>>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 1:08 PM, Marcel Kinard <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> That could be accomplished with XSLT. And XPath has basic query >>>>>>capability. James Jong and I have skills in those. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Jul 26, 2013, at 2:19 PM, Filip Maj <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Ahh yeah. Some kind of at-publish-time conversion of certain plugin.xml >>>>>>> fields to json fields? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On 7/26/13 10:27 AM, "Anis KADRI" <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I think XML is not a query friendly language. I suggest we add an >>>>>>>> engine field initially and then add fields as we need them. I suspect >>>>>>>> we won't be needing the bulk of plugin.xml in the registry. I have to >>>>>>>> experiment with custom fields still but it seems possible. I will >>>>>>>> report back sometime today. >>>>>> >>>>
