This is a perfect example of this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1172/
On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Ian Clelland <iclell...@chromium.org> wrote: > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> wrote: > >> Config.xml is not a very sane way to do things for the embedded webview >> case. E.g. you may want two webviews with different configs. Config.java is >> a singleton right now, and I think it would be much nicer as a parameter >> you could give to the WebView upon initialization & plugins should say: >> this.getConfig().getPreference() rather than using it as a singleton. So... >> If we could leave setPreference() in for now, I think we should. When we >> remove it, we should provide a nice API for the embedding case (e.g. a >> Config without the need to hit the filesystem). >> >> >> pluginManager being public is unfortunate. That said, other than >> getPlugin(), I don't see any methods in it that plugins should need. If >> we're to remove the property, I don't think we should expose PluginManager >> to plugins, but rather try and keep that an internal detail. >> > > This is actually what I was working on last night -- the problem is that > plugins *do* use that field right now. File, File-Transfer, and Media > Capture all use it to get access to other plugins to use their APIs. > (through this.webView.pluginManager.getPlugin("somePlugin") ) > > It does make sense for plugins to have native APIs as well as JavaScript > APIs, and the only way to expose that right now is through the plugin > manager. > > Unfortunately, it's been a public field on the plugin's webView object, and > there's no easy way to transition that to a setter. At least, not in a way > that ensures that both existing and new plugins can work with pre- and > post-3.5.0 Cordova. > > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: >> >> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> >> > wrote: >> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> > > > >> > > >> Hey >> > > >> >> > > >> So, once again, we're dealing with some major API changes once we >> > > >> introduce pluggable webview. The first change that was done for >> > > >> sanity was finally deprecating setProperty. This was slated to be >> > > >> removed by 3.5 or in six months from the deprecation date, but we >> kept >> > > >> it in too long. While I would like to assume that everyone has >> moved >> > > >> over to setting their preferences in config.xml, which is the much >> > > >> more sane way of doing things, we can't do that. We need to >> publicize >> > > >> this in some blog posts, as well as in our documentation somehow. >> > > >> There will obviously be some pissed off users, as we've seen in past >> > > >> posts, but I think having the ability to use a WebView other than >> > > >> Chrome 30 is worth these changes. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > Is it feasible to leave setProperty working only for default WebView? >> > > This >> > > > would mean that custom webviews won't work with older plugins, but I >> > > think >> > > > thats fine. >> > > > >> > > >> > > The setProperty methods are actually in Cordova-Activity, and we could >> > > re-add those. The thing is that these aren't actually used by >> > > plugins, and instead are legacy methods that only our unit tests use. >> > > I'll put them back in. >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> >> > > >> The other change, which says more about our design is adding a >> getter >> > > >> method for pluginManager. We need to access the pluginManager to >> get >> > > >> plugins, and it's expected that everyone who implements a >> > > >> CordovaWebView will have this method produce a pluginManager. In >> the >> > > >> past, it was just publicly exposed, which was not the greatest idea >> > > >> and was kinda sloppy. >> > > >> >> > > > >> > > > Similar to above question, could we leave it (deprecated) as an >> exposed >> > > > property only on the default webview? And only support the new >> getter >> > > for >> > > > new webviews (xwalk, gecko)? Again, only updated plugins would work >> > with >> > > > custom webview, but I think thats fine. >> > > > >> > > >> > > No, I don't think so. It's probably better to make a clean break and >> > > have all the WebViews expected to function the same than to have some >> > > plugins simply fail with certain webviews. Plugins breaking across >> > > all the WebViews will force people to fix them, while things breaking >> > > with only Crosswalk will put crosswalk at an unfair disadvantage. >> > > >> > >> > Trust me, Crosswalk is going to have an unfair *advantage* regardless of >> > plugin support ;) >> > >>