I'd be happier if it were JSON, but it's not, and the XML doesn't cause enough pain to be worth making the switch.
Ian explained it accurately; it's mostly a historical accident that we're using XML. Braden On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Lucas Holmquist <lholm...@redhat.com>wrote: > 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> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>> > >>>>> > >>> > >>> > >> > >
