On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:52 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1 unbundle. The reason we added it in was that it fixes issues with > Android's built-in networking stack. It was added pre-plugin-breakout, and > was never broken out into its own plugin. > > Because CordovaResourceApi is a core API. > The good news is that I think it'll be quite straight-forward to extract it > out. We don't expose OkHttp interfaces anywhere, and instead exposed it > through CordovaResourceApi via createHttpConnection() (which returns a > HttpURLConnection, not an OkHttp interface). > > How many plugins depend on this functionality? > The grey area is whether we'd want the FileTransfer plugin to depend on > OkHttp, or whether we just have FileTransfer be flakey on pre-KitKat > devices if devs don't choose to add the plugin. I think I'd be in the camp > of adding it by default, but then allow it to be removed via "plugin rm". > Our tools don's support that right now though. > I don't think this is a grey area. We could move this in the plugin, but this is an API change. Can you create a feature branch off 4.0.x with this? > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:51 AM, Marcel Kinard <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I agree it would be cleaner to not embed okhttp in Cordova. > > > > If it is removed, what do you see as the user experience? Does the CLI > > automatically download the okhttpd jar from square's github? Or do we > > expect the user to do that manually and drop it in a lib folder? > > > > Would it be possible to have the Apache httpd client take the place of > > okhttp, or are there okhttp-specific functions being used? > > > > On Sep 29, 2014, at 5:16 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Hey > > > > > > Can we unbundle okhttp without breaking Cordova? I think that our > > bundling > > > has become a serious problem, and we should find a way to abstract the > > > dependency away somehow into a plugin and should do this in 4.0.x. > > > > > > Ian, anyone else who knows what's going on with File/URIs? What's your > > > thoughts on this? > > > > > > Joe > > > > >
