Not so much an accident as very deliberate!
When we started this is how you worked with JSON:
var data = eval('"' + my_json_string + '"')
We then had some fun w/ Crockford's JSON lib licensing. [1] Specifically
IBM did not like the enforceability of "The Software shall be used for
Good, not Evil." clause. Doug offered to rewrite it: "The Software shall be
used for Good, not Evil, unless you are IBM." But surprisingly this was not
enough. So, we wrote our own JSON lib. Yup. JavaScript was pretty awesome 5
years ago.
/me grumbles about lawn or something
[1] http://www.json.org/license.html
On Mon, Oct 21, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org>wrote:
> 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>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
