+1
On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Carlos Santana <[email protected]> wrote: > +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 <[email protected]>wrote: > >> That sounds good to me. >> >> >> On Fri, Nov 15, 2013 at 11:29 AM, Braden Shepherdson <[email protected] >> >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 <[email protected] >> > >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 <[email protected]> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 7:22 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected] >> > >> > > > wrote: >> > > > > On Thu, Nov 14, 2013 at 5:14 PM, Anis KADRI <[email protected]> >> > > > 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 >> > > > >> <[email protected]> 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 < >> > > > [email protected] >> > > > >> >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 < >> > > > >> >> [email protected]> 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 > <[email protected]>
