At this point, I have to agree. I found a couple more issues while sorting things out today that make me think it's not as obviously clean as it would have to be to be in 3.5.0.
(The hope was originally that the public interface would be *exactly* the same, so it would be obvious that there were no compatibility issues, but it's a bit more complicated than that now :( ) For now, it can stay on a branch, and we can experiment with it until it's ready for merging. No need to hold up the rest of the cadence train for one feature. Ian On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 12:06 PM, Steven Gill <[email protected]> wrote: > I agree with Marcel. We should give it more time and bump it to a future > release. > On May 1, 2014 8:42 AM, "Marcel Kinard" <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Given the recent thread on "customer pain points", I'd suggest that this > > capability be released when there is confidence that it works well, and > any > > breakages are understood and minimized. Reading the other threads, sounds > > like it's not quite there yet. > > > > On May 1, 2014, at 10:02 AM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Should we just be cautious and bump to 3.6, or do we give you till > > Monday? > > > > > > > > > On Thu, May 1, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Ian Clelland <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > > >> Currently, I think that pluggable webview is a non-starter for 3.5.0; > > >> there's an unfortunate backwards-incompatibility introduced by > > abstracting > > >> CordovaWebView from a class into an interface. > > >> > > >> /me swears at Java for not having either multiple inheritance or > > non-static > > >> fields on interfaces... > > >> > > >> I'm playing with one possible solution to this today; if it works, > then > > we > > >> might be able to get this in to 3.5, but I'm not 100% confident yet. > > I'll > > >> have to let you know later today. > > > > >
