I like it. Statusbar is considered core by the community. That said, should it be rolled into the platform as a feature?
On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 7:39 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 <[email protected] > >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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> > > 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected] > > > > >>> 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 <[email protected]> > > 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. > > >> > > >
