yea, this is understandable. wasn't really sure the reasoning, but it looks like diminishing returns here On Oct 21, 2013, at 10:06 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote:
> 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> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>> >>> >>
