XML is also buying us a couple of small but nice features, such as optionally wrapping tags with a <platform> tag or (potentially) a <mode> tag, etc. That functionality would not be expressed as cleanly with JSON, so its not a pure win to move away from XML.
Add to that the fact that we are already perceived to change stuff way too often for no due cause, I just really don't see the value. On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 9:28 AM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@google.com> wrote: > I suspect that it is because plugin.xml was derived (intellectually, if not > literally) from config.xml, which was an XML file because of the W3C > Widgets spec, which we tried to adhere to. > > Whether that spec is still relevant (there doesn't seem to be a lot of > vendor interest in it (speaking as an Apache member, *not* as a vendor > representative)) is definitely up for debate. There probably are some gains > to be made in switching to a JSON config format, given how much of the > project is JavaScript these days, but it might not be worth all of the work > it would take to do it. > > Ian > > > On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 8:35 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholm...@redhat.com > >wrote: > > > Perhaps this has been brought up before, but why are we using an xml > > file? why not make it a json file. > > > > Plugman is written in node( js ) so why not have the plugin "config" file > > in it's native format. This will probably save a bit of code since the > xml > > is converted to an object to manipulate anyway. > > > > > > i know this is a little off topic. > > > > thoughts? > > > > On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:31 PM, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > I have created an issue to keep track of the registry refactor. > > > https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-5130 > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > >> I added some validation for plugin names (to follow > > >> reverse-domain-name convention) a couple of weeks ago but there needs > > >> to be more of it for sure. > > >> > > >> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Steven Gill <stevengil...@gmail.com > > > > >> wrote: > > >>> I have created an issue to track the meta tag addition. > > >>> https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-5128 > > >>> > > >>> I agree with doing validation with plugman during publish time. We > > should > > >>> decide soon which ones are going to be mandatory and which ones will > be > > >>> optional. Probably update the plugin spec + our docs around creating > > >>> plugins as well. > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> Perhaps either plugman or the registry should do some validation, > and > > >> have > > >>>> some "required" fields? I know that PhoneGap Build when you try to > > >> submit a > > >>>> plugin they error out if you are missing some fields that they > > require. > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Gorkem Ercan < > > gorkem.er...@gmail.com > > >>>>> wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>>> +1 for adding metadata but should more of the metadata be > compulsory? > > >>>>> > > >>>>> JBoss tools plugin discovery uses the cordova.io registry and some > > >> of > > >>>> the > > >>>>> plugins are missing a lot to. http://snag.gy/aAxjL.jpg is a > > >> screenshot > > >>>>> that shows how the case. http://snag.gy/J8rl6.jpg is a screenshot > of > > >> a > > >>>> few > > >>>>> plugins that has most of its data. As you can see with the missing > > >>>>> descriptions etc. it is not possible to do an informed decision on > > >>>> whether > > >>>>> to use a plugin or not. Although information such as keywords does > > not > > >>>> seem > > >>>>> like important it becomes quite useful when you are trying to find > a > > >>>>> certain plugin. > > >>>>> -- > > >>>>> Gorkem > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org > > > > >>>> wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>>> +1 to repo / issue / website / docs etc metadata > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -1 *for now* to dependencies at specific versions, and testing > > >> related > > >>>>>> changes like <mode>, just because its not clear what the right > > >> solution > > >>>>> to > > >>>>>> these problems is. We do need to address it, but those topics > will > > >>>>> likely > > >>>>>> move to separate discussions. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Lucas Holmquist < > > >> lholm...@redhat.com > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> i was just thinking the same thing :) > > >>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 12:06 PM, Carlos Santana < > > >> csantan...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> plugin.xml metadata is looking more and more like a package.json > > >>>>> (i.e. > > >>>>>>> npm) > > >>>>>>>> ;-p > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Fri, Oct 18, 2013 at 11:40 AM, Steve Gill < > > >>>> stevengil...@gmail.com > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Yes I meant plugins.xml > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> On Oct 18, 2013, at 5:43 AM, Lucas Holmquist < > > >>>> lholm...@redhat.com> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 17, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Steven Gill < > > >>>> stevengil...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>>>> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> So looks like want to to start including more data on > > >>>>>>>>>>> http://plugins.cordova.io. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Repo tag -> points to repo where plugin lives > > >>>>>>>>>>> Issue tag -> points to issue tracker (with component for > > >> jira) > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Testing related (can get discussed more in testing thread > > >>>>>>>>>>> Mode tag -> to differentiate between testing mode and normal > > >>>> mode > > >>>>>>>>>>> JS module tag for test module > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Dependency related > > >>>>>>>>>>> adding version number to dependency tags so they don't just > > >> grab > > >>>>>>> latest > > >>>>>>>>>>> always. Multiple approaches were discussed and this > > >> discussion > > >>>>>> should > > >>>>>>>>>>> probably happen in a new thread. > > >>>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>>> Thoughts on above? Suggestions for other meta data we should > > >>>> look > > >>>>>> into > > >>>>>>>>>>> adding to config.xml? > > >>>>>>>>>> did you mean plugin.xml? > > >>>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> -- > > >>>>>>>> Carlos Santana > > >>>>>>>> <csantan...@gmail.com> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>> > > >> > > > > >
