Compatibility with npm sounds great and I fully support it. We still need to be conscious of old plugin.xml compatibility, though
Interesting thing there is putting plugman or cordova-cli into plugins' package.json as dependencies, which would give you all tools you need to do cool things like auto-installation On 7/29/13 4:55 PM, "Brian LeRoux" <[email protected]> wrote: >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. >>>>>>> >>>>>
