What does core mean? Does "core" mean that it has the namespace "org.apache.cordova."? Does "core" mean that it is something we will support? Does "core" mean that it is something that applies to multiple platforms?
I would like "core" to be the first two. And by "we", I mean at least one committer. That's generally how platforms have worked (if no committers is interested in maintaining them, then they don't get worked on. Otherwise, they do). I do also like the idea of a "org.apache.cordova.labs" namespace. We could use it to mean that it's something we are thinking about being "core" in the future, but it's at risk of changing (e.g. API fluctuation), or of us deciding it's not actually worth our time to support. I would put statusbar as "core" given the stated importance of it so far, and given that multiple people are willing to work on it. I would put keyboard as "labs" due to the current quality of it (serious iOS7 bugs, unsolved dead-zone when removing accessory). On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 7:31 PM, purplecabbage <purplecabb...@gmail.com>wrote: > StatusBar wp7+8 is mostly done. Just testing some stuff now. > > Sent from my iPhone > > > On Mar 7, 2014, at 3:30 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Technically there are two platforms right now. Android has minimal > support, > > and Jesse wants to do WP8 (again minimal), so thats another. > > > > > >> On Fri, Mar 7, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> > >> +1 for labs. it doesn't really make sense to have them in core if they > only > >> support one platform. > >> > >> > >>> On Thu, Mar 6, 2014 at 8:47 AM, James Jong <wjamesj...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >>> > >>> Similar to keyboard plugin, I like the idea of letting this bake in > labs > >>> for now and moving them into core if we see multiple platforms start > >>> needing a similar API. So (a) and (c) for me. > >>> > >>> I would add that the iOS 6/7 specific code may not make sense as > "core". > >>> > >>> -James Jong > >>> > >>>> On Mar 5, 2014, at 9:10 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> I have created a task in JIRA for all the statusbar related > discussion. > >>> [1] > >>>> There are numerous inconsistencies we need to address here. > >>>> > >>>> [1] https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-6177 > >>>> > >>>> @purplecabbage > >>>> risingj.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 5:15 PM, Shazron <shaz...@gmail.com> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> Some background on the statusbar plugin. > >>>>> > >>>>> This was conceived because of iOS 7 where the statusbar overlays the > >>>>> webview, and a lot of people didn't like their UI changing especially > >> if > >>>>> they still support iOS 6. That is the primary purpose of this plugin, > >>> but > >>>>> there are other features in there as well. In the last few weeks, > >> there > >>> was > >>>>> a pull request (now integrated) for StatusBar.hide and StatusBar.show > >>> for > >>>>> Android as well. > >>>>> > >>>>> The issues related to the statusbar are under the label > >>> "statusbar-plugin" > >>>>> in JIRA, and there are currently 11 open issues. There are pull > >> requests > >>>>> for it from the PhoneGap Build team that I am waiting to integrate -- > >>> not > >>>>> until we get this namespace stuff sorted out. > >>>>> > >>>>> I am not opposed to it being under the "labs" namespace. After > talking > >>> to > >>>>> the Adobe team, we could also host the plugin under the PhoneGap > >> Github > >>>>> org, but I'd rather use that as a last resort. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 11:36 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> > >>> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>>> (a) Yes. > >>>>>> (b) No -- some organizations (Adobe) don't like this, and we respect > >>>>> that. > >>>>>> We also want to point users at these plugins, so its good to have > >>>>>> developers protected by Apache. > >>>>>> (c) Sure -- so long as labs is clearly separate, and we leave them > >> out > >>> of > >>>>>> blogs / plugin release notes, and we don't impact the rate of > >> releases > >>>>>> (i.e. we don't force devs to test the labs plugins, just verify the > >>>>>> signatures is enough). > >>>>>> (d) I think the "guardian" of these labs plugins should be free to > >>>>> publish. > >>>>>> There is no reason they are lower quality than anything else. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Separate issue: is statusbar ready for Core? I think we should > leave > >>> it > >>>>> in > >>>>>> labs for a little bit, have at least a few eyes audit the API and > >>>>>> investigate if there is any other similar work in the field before > we > >>>>> make > >>>>>> users depend on this, but that it should move to core eventually. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> -Michal > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 1:14 PM, Shazron <shaz...@apache.org> > wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> statusbar is already published org.apache.cordova.statusbar. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> And... Since these plugins are somewhat experimental and we're > >>> starting > >>>>>> the > >>>>>>> process of voting and publishing plugins to dist/, I wonder: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> a) Should we change the ID of these plugins to, say > >>>>>>> "org.apache.cordova.labs" > >>>>>>> b) Should we move these plugins to github and have them not under > >>>>> apache > >>>>>>> for now, e.g.: com.shazron.statusbar > >>>>>>> c) Should we just add them to the plugin release process. > >>>>>>> d) Should we just never publish them to the registry and have > people > >>>>> use > >>>>>>> them via git url. > >> >
