On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is a perfect example of this XKCD: https://xkcd.com/1172/ > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 2:25 PM, Ian Clelland <[email protected]> > wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > 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). > Although I still think it shouldn't be a singleton, I've realized that plugins require it reading from config.xml, so an all-in-memory config doesn't make sense (would break plugins). Maybe for prefs it still would... not sure. Just thinking out loud on this one. Don't have a proposal. > >> > >> > >> 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. > I think we're saying the same thing. I called out getPlugin() as the one plugins would actually need. It's things like init() shouldn't be touched by plugins. I don't see a clean way to not break this. I doubt it's used much by non-core plugins, so I think it's worth changing & doing a major semver bump for Android. > > > > > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:58 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 1:30 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> > > >> > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 9:35 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> > >> > wrote: > >> > > > On Wed, Apr 30, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> > >> > 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 ;) > >> > > >> >
