On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 3:04 PM, Jesse <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Joe, is it really a requirement to have multiple cordova views co-exist at > runtime? I would expect that the choice to use Mozilla-WebView or Chrome, > or cross-walk ... would be used for the entire app. > The actual use case is the embedded web view, for the times when you don't have a CordovaActivity because you had to extend something else to act as the Interface. This could be a fragment, for example (and I know this use case exists, because we get asked for this feature). We need to have some way for the Third Party WebViews to load the plugins. > The entire plugin system is based on there only ever being one > cordova_plugins.js and one config.xml, so I am not sure how you would even > use multiple views in this case. > > Very true. It only works if every view is using the same set of plugins and had the same rules. The initial embedded WebView case is actually a better example. I literally just used the first use case that popped into my head, not the best use case or the most common one. > > > @purplecabbage > risingj.com > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 2:19 PM, Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote: > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 4:53 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 1:18 PM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 11:07 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed, Oct 1, 2014 at 7:24 AM, Andrew Grieve < > agri...@chromium.org> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Good idea (I think)! > > > > > > > > > > > > In my mind there's two main things wrong with our current > > > abstractions: > > > > > > 1. WebView plugins should extend a class instead of implement an > > > > > interface. > > > > > > - Reason: You can't make *any* changes to an interface without > > > > breaking > > > > > > the compile for everyone that implements it > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Reason we use an interface: Java does not support multiple > > inheritance. > > > > > Both Ian and I have said this numerous times, and you wishing that > > this > > > > > wasn't the case isn't going to magically make this change. This is > > the > > > > > only way this feature is even possible. Also, this is an API that > > > we're > > > > > designing, and we shouldn't be messing with the interface. We're > > stuck > > > > > with a lot of WebView-isms that may not even make sense on > > non-Chromium > > > > > webviews, but I think the surface has been decreased. > > > > > > > > > > > > > I don't think we need multiple inheritance. What would you want to > > > inherit > > > > from? > > > > > > > > > > AndroidWebView inherits form WebView, and the Mozilla WebView that I'm > > > working on inherits from GeckoView. They both can be used as their own > > > views, and most of our tests still work. By removing the interface and > > > saying that things aren't views anymore breaks the WebView feature that > > > we've worked on two releases ago that some people still use. Sure, you > > > don't use it, and you have made it clear that you don't care about > these > > > users, but we need to have some sort of consistency. I'd rather have > > > > > > > I don't think that was made clear at all. Andrew asked a valid question > -- > > is it impossible to have a civil tech discussion without being chewed out > > like this? I won't comment on every other reply below, but generally > > countering disagreements with slander is just not a convincing argument. > > > > > > > people just rename a class than lose an entire feature because you > don't > > > think it's important. > > > > > > > > > > I think it's unrealistic to think that we'll never want to add any > > > methods > > > > or parameters to the interface. > > > > > > > > > > > And this thinking is why Cordova is so terribly unstable, and why > quality > > > has gone down since 3.0. For all the talk about not changing APIs and > > not > > > screwing over our users, you seriously managed to do exactly that with > > your > > > refactors that you did on master without using a topic branch. That's > > > exactly why we had to re-do the tag at 3.6.4, because Marcel and Martin > > ran > > > into problems with your refactor. This is the line in the sand, this > is > > an > > > API that we want third-party people to use, we can't keep making > changes > > to > > > it in minor versions. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 2. We need to reduce the amount of copy & pasted code between the > > > > > > implementations. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Given that this is literally the AndroidWebView that exists in the > > > 4.0.x > > > > > repo ripped out, this is copy and pasted code so that it actually > > > works. > > > > > > > > > > > > > To clarify: I think the distinction should be "what code is specific > to > > > my > > > > webview" vs. "what code is specific to any webview within Cordova". > And > > > > right now there's a good amount of Cordova-specific code in the > > > cross-walk > > > > and AndroidWebView code. > > > > > > > > > > > There's a lot of code that needs to be in a WebView for Cordova. This > is > > > because of the numerous use cases, such as multiple WebViews, where > each > > > instance needs to keep track of its own set of plugins, for starters. > > > There are probably more use cases that need to be though of, but > > expecting > > > there to be no Cordova code is ridiculous. Also, part of the reason > > we're > > > doing a Mozilla WebView is because it's so radically different from the > > > Chromium based WebViews we can use it to re-think what is needed. > > > > > > Honestly, if you think you can do a better job on the API and keep some > > > backwards compatibility with the current API, spin up a topic branch, > but > > > the 4.0.x branch already contains code that was approved months ago, > and > > > your opposition to it now is ridiculous. It's like you're trying to > > derail > > > the work because of some unknown reason, which wouldn't be a new thing > at > > > all. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:58 PM, Sergey Grebnov (Akvelon) < > > > > > > v-seg...@microsoft.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 > > > > > > > It would be also great if there is a way to extend/override > some > > > > > default > > > > > > > webview functionality as well (not only provide full webview > > > > > > implementation) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > For example, what will be recommended way to extend default > > > > > > > onReceivedHttpAuthRequest functionality if I want to > > automatically > > > > show > > > > > > > credentials dialog in case of 401 response? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/blob/master/framework/src/org/apache/cordova/CordovaWebViewClient.java#L116 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thx! > > > > > > > Sergey > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > > > > From: Joe Bowser [mailto:bows...@gmail.com] > > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:44 PM > > > > > > > To: dev > > > > > > > Subject: Re: [Android] Third Party WebView Reference > > Implementation > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:42 AM, Michal Mocny < > > > mmo...@chromium.org> > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make sure I understand, this is implementing the system > > > webview > > > > as > > > > > > > > a pluggable-webview-via-plugin? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yes. The idea was to use this to figure out our API surface > and > > to > > > > see > > > > > > > what's necessary and what's not. Also, we need a way to test > > this > > > > > > without > > > > > > > having to rely on third party bits from Intel or anyone else. > > > While > > > > > it's > > > > > > > the same implementation, the fact is that it's a slightly > > different > > > > > class > > > > > > > so we could in theory test this and hopefully automate it. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > This, is interesting. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Joe Bowser < > > bows...@gmail.com> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Hey > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So, as part of the work for Third Party Webviews, I decided > > to > > > > > write > > > > > > > > > up a super quick reference implementation by just copying > the > > > > > > > > > AndroidWebView > > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > > > making it a plugin. I haven't fully tested this yet, but > it > > > > should > > > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > > as > > > > > > > > > a third-party WebView. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The tricky part that I found here is how much of Cordova we > > > have > > > > to > > > > > > > > > keep exposed for Third-Party WebViews to work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Anyway, the work is on GitHub with Apache Licences. Once > it > > > gets > > > > > > > > massaged > > > > > > > > > a bit more, it may need a home at Apache. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/infil00p/ThirdPartyWebViewRef > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Feel free to fork it and go through it and put feedback on > > this > > > > > > thread. > > > > > > > > > It's the same code as AndroidWebView in the 4.0.x branch, > so > > > some > > > > > of > > > > > > > > > this may be using exposed APIs out of convenience. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
