+1 Yep I agree this way users can get list of plugins installed from javascript pretty easy on all platforms from a web resource (i.e. cordova_plugins.js )
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:50 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>wrote: > That sounds good to me. > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Braden Shepherdson <bra...@chromium.org > >wrote: > > > Looking back over all of this discussion, we have a growing trend of > > dissatisfaction with the current config file setup. We've talked in the > > past about moving to JSON format, Andrew is suggesting above replacing > 99% > > of <config-file> uses with specialized tags to inject permissions and > > <feature>s, my summary in the other thread was pretty disgustingly > > complicated, etc. > > > > I propose three things: > > 1. Punt all discussion of overhauling configuration files to the new > year. > > 2. Drop my proposals above, as well as the summary Anis posted of last > > night's discussion. > > 3. Solve the immediate use-case of AppHarness wanting to know what > plugins > > are installed by injecting that object into a new key attached to the > array > > of JS modules in cordova_plugins.js. > > > > This modifies a file that is already clearly a build artifact and not > > touched by humans. It is fully backward compatible, since the array of JS > > modules is unchanged when viewed as an array. And it gets me access the > > information I needed in the short term to build the AppHarness > > functionality. > > > > How does that sound? > > > > Braden > > > > > > On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org > > >wrote: > > > > > I think the thing that irks me about the proposal to fiddle with > > > <feature>s, is that right now plugins put them in <config-file> tags. > > With > > > these tags: > > > > > > - You can specify any target that's an xml file > > > - You can specify any xpath in the parent attribute > > > - plugman will splice in your XML into the target file if-and-only-if > > there > > > wasn't already another plugin that spliced in the exact same chunk into > > the > > > exact same place. > > > > > > Now, we're proposing to make this <config-file> rule even more complex: > > > - You can specify any target that's an xml file > > > - You can specify any xpath in the parent attribute > > > NEW: > > > - If you specify target="config.xml" AND you specify parent xpath that > > > evaluates to the same things as parent="/widget" Then: > > > - For each top-level <feature> element in your payload: > > > - Plugman will insert two new <params> into it with your plugin > ID & > > > version > > > - plugman will splice in your XML into the target file if-and-only-if > > there > > > wasn't already another plugin that spliced in the exact same chunk into > > the > > > exact same place. > > > NEW: > > > - If your plugin does not have any <config-file> targets that match the > > > above conditions: > > > - Plugman will add one for you with a default payload of a <feature> > > with > > > params. > > > > > > > > > I haven't run it past any real-world users, but it if it sounds > > complicated > > > to me, then I'd be surprised if it wasn't also confusing to others. > > > > > > Maybe a fallout of this discussion is that it's hurting us to be using > > > <config-file> for common things. Seems like it would be simpler for > both > > > plugman and plugin devs to have <feature> outside of <config-file>. If > > this > > > were the case, I'd be much more open to the idea of altering them when > we > > > spliced them in. > > > > > > Going a step further, Michal suggested in another thread that we just > > > include the plugin.xml files directly in apps. The more I think about > > this, > > > the more it makes sense to me. Why are we even splicing things into > > > config.xml? Seems like we're doing work to lose information. If we just > > > included the plugin.xml files directly, we could read out the > <feature>, > > > <access>, plugin iD & version, even <js-module>s. If we want to keep > all > > > the runtime xml in one file, how about splice in the entire plugin.xml > > into > > > config.xml? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 11:19 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > >> So... > > > > >> > > > > >> We just had a good chat about this topic with Braden and Gorkem > and > > we > > > > >> think that adding <param>s to the existing <feature> tag is better > > > > >> than introducing a new one. > > > > >> > > > > >> Pros: > > > > >> - No new tags, less confusion. > > > > > > > > > > Unless we're going to add a new tag to do what <feature> currently > > > does, > > > > > I'd argue having one tag that does two things is more confusing. > > > > > > > > As you say it's arguable but I tend to base my arguments on > real-world > > > > users rather than Cordova core developers. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > - A good path towards having a unique top-level config.xml since we > > > > >> can now identify which plugins are installed from the feature tag. > > > > >> Therefore, we can better handle uninstalls and user edits to the > > file. > > > > >> > > > > > This makes me think I just don't understand what the proposal now > is. > > > An > > > > > example would help I think. > > > > > Some questions: > > > > > - Does this mean we're going to change <feature> to not directly > > define > > > > > bridge mappings? > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > - Is the idea to have a new tag within <feature> that defines > the > > > > bridge > > > > > binding? > > > > > > > > No > > > > > > > > > - If not: > > > > > - what are we doing with plugins that define multiple <feature> > > > tags? > > > > > > > > We define two <param>s that hold the plugin ID an version. In older > > > > versions of cordova <feature> was called <plugin> and the mapping was > > > > one-to-one and it still seems to be the case. If for whatever reason > > > > one needs to have 2+ <feature>s for one plugin, all <feature> tags > > > > should define <param>s that indicate ID/version. > > > > > > > > > - what are we doing if apps directly define <feature> tags > > directly > > > in > > > > > their config.xml (outside of plugins)? This is still common for > > plugins > > > > > that haven't been updated to plugman. I think we do this for > plugins > > > > > bundled with the platforms (e.g. Android's App plugin) > > > > > > > > I am not sure I understand the question but everything gets defined > in > > > > the top-level config.xml (plugins, js-only plugins and > > > > platform-specific things like Android's App plugin). > > > > > > > I just wanted to point out that people still copy & paste in <feature> > > tags > > > directly into their config.xml for plugins that haven't been > > plugmanified. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> Cons: > > > > >> - Harder to implement for us. "Should still take less time than > > > > >> arguing on the topic" said Braden ;-) > > > > >> - Previous Cordova platforms might or might not choke when they > see > > > > >> JS-only plugins listed as <feature>s but it's unlikely. > > > > >> > > > > > Android chokes: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/blob/master/framework/src/org/apache/cordova/PluginManager.java > > > > > > > > Can you be specifc ? From what I read from PluginManager.java and > > > > PluginEntry.java is that it gets added to a HashMap but the class > only > > > > gets instantiated if "onload" <param> is defined or if getPlugin() is > > > > called when JS is called but exec not called for JS-only plugins > > > > right? > > > > > > > Sorry, should have just tried it out before speaking up. I thought > > adding a > > > null key would be a problem, but it seems as though hash maps do allow > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Not sure if this was considered, but instead of using a config > file, > > we > > > > > could generate a source file that gets compiled in. Would eliminate > > any > > > > > performance concerns and stay out of files that users might be > > peering > > > > at. > > > > > > > > Sure but this would only solve the app-harness problem we could also > > > > solve at least two more problems: > > > > - Have one canonical config.xml which is a path to making platforms > > > > true build artifacts. > > > > - Have the ability install all plugins all at once (ala npm install). > > > > > > > Good points. generating a source file == bad idea. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 12:31 PM, Braden Shepherdson > > > > >> <bra...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > > >> > Following up on my big config-and-metadata summary in the other > > > > thread, > > > > >> the > > > > >> > file in question here is the platform config.xml (that is, > > > > >> > $PROJECT/platforms/<platform>/.../config.xml, see my summary). > > > > >> > Significantly, this file is written by Plugman and CLI, and read > > by > > > > the > > > > >> > native platform. The user never reads or writes this file > directly > > > in > > > > the > > > > >> > normal flow of things. > > > > >> > > > > > >> > Braden > > > > >> > > > > > >> > > > > > >> > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:29 PM, Braden Shepherdson < > > > > bra...@chromium.org > > > > >> >wrote: > > > > >> > > > > > >> >> There's a bit of a BC issue here because cordova.js needs to > know > > > > what > > > > >> >> file to inject a <script> tag for, so it can load the file and > > then > > > > load > > > > >> >> its module. That's why I hesitated to modify the format of that > > > file, > > > > >> >> originally. (It currently sets module.exports to an array of > > > > <js-module> > > > > >> >> info.) Like Andrew says, entirely possible to make the change, > > just > > > > that > > > > >> >> some care is required. > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> Braden > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >> On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Jonathan Bond-Caron < > > > > >> >> jbo...@gdesolutions.com> wrote: > > > > >> >> > > > > >> >>> On Thu Nov 14 01:44 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > > > > >> >>> > I'm going to attempt to summarize in point form: > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > Goal: > > > > >> >>> > - Make available the list of installed plugins and their > > > > versions to > > > > >> >>> native side & JS > > > > >> >>> > side. > > > > >> >>> > - Needed by App Harness to know whether an app is > compatible > > > with > > > > >> its > > > > >> >>> > bundled set of plugins. > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > Using cordova_plugins.js: > > > > >> >>> > - It doesn't have the information that we need > > > > >> >>> > - We could add the extra information, but not easily since > > the > > > > file > > > > >> >>> exports an > > > > >> >>> > array instead of an object. > > > > >> >>> > - This file is not currently parsed by the native layer, so > > > > having > > > > >> the > > > > >> >>> info here > > > > >> >>> > would be an extra IO on start-up. > > > > >> >>> > > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Great summary :) > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Is it difficult to rename ' cordova_plugins.js' to something > > more > > > > broad > > > > >> >>> 'cordova_meta.js', ' cordova_loader.js', 'cordova_boot.js' and > > > > using an > > > > >> >>> object? > > > > >> >>> Since it's generated code, first impression is there's no BC > > issue > > > > >> other > > > > >> >>> than doing another prepare. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Doesn't seem like there's a way to avoid the extra IO on the > > > native > > > > >> side > > > > >> >>> (e.g. cordova_meta.js). If the detailed list of installed > > plugins > > > > is in > > > > >> >>> xml, how will the JS side access it? > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> Broader problem is there's no single cordova meta file that's > > > shared > > > > >> >>> between native & js. Considering that on some platforms, > there's > > > > only > > > > >> >>> JavaScript, putting the information in JSON seems like a good > > > move. > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >>> > > > > >> >> > > > > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
