def think we should support those specs in our great and fabled api audit…had not considered the load order issue
not insurmountable and probably should be a feature/fix for the plugin loader load order …but also sort of scary… reminds me of script tags hell on that note: we need to make browserify thing first class. whats the hold up on that front? On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 12:47 PM, Michal Mocny <[email protected]> wrote: > Do we prefer to invent new cordova-specific apis, or prefer to match > standard browser apis? When there is no browser spec to match then design > comes down to aesthetics and personal preference (as you say). But often > there is an existing browser spec, and then it comes down to match or > fork. I'm in the camp of preferring to match, and was under the assumption > others here were too. > > Given the upcoming specs mentioned earlier (sockets, file, filesystem, > permissions, service worker, fetch), seems that fighting the adoption of > promises in core apis implies opposing the adoption of modern web specs. > e.g. I'm assuming Andrew was referring to > http://www.w3.org/TR/battery-status/, since matching that spec *would* > require promises. > > > Now, as I understand, you are not saying you are opposed to adoption of > promises in Cordova, but that you are simply against the inclusion of a > polyfill directly inside cordova-js. I think that a promises-polyfill > plugin alternative has some technical downsides [1], but they seem not so > insurmountable that we shouldn't just get passed this debate and do that. > > In my opinion, we should prefer to create a common plugin (at least until > browserify), since I really hope we don't tell devs to just include their > own polyfill with each plugin. > > [1]: > - Can't rely on a polyfill plugin for cordova-js itself. There are a few > places where that may have been useful. > - We don't currently load plugins in an order that respects plugin > dependencies, so every plugin relying on promises-polyfill will have to > require() it at runtime before using and forgetting to do so > may-or-may-not lead to an error. Maybe we just fix this in our plugin > loader. > - It seems odd that window.Promise will exist depending on which plugins > you have installed. While this technically isn't different than with any > plugin modifying global symbols, it seems odd-er when applied to a > dependant platform feature. > > -Michal > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 1:56 PM, Jesse <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Why does battery-status 'require' promises? > > > > I agree that promises are here to stay, but I am unclear why it would be > a > > good idea to go and change/rewrite/break our apis to use them? > > > > Most of the windows plugins use promises all over the place, the entire > > async windows js api is promise based, but this has zero impact on what > our > > core-api looks like to a user. The same should apply to any plugin that > > wants to depend on promises, just depend on a promise plugin, which may > or > > may not add polyfil code to the dom. > > > > > > > > > > > > @purplecabbage > > risingj.com > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 9:41 AM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > - no technical benefit (but aesthetics, sure) > > > - adds weight (payload and runtime) > > > - might interfere with userland polly > > > > > > -1 > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Andrew Grieve <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > One specific spot in core I'd like to use it is to address this TODO > in > > > > Android's exec bridge: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/cordova-js/blob/master/src/android/exec.js#L263 > > > > > > > > The actual need is for a setImmediate polyfill, but Promise does the > > same > > > > thing (with an extra object creation). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 10:35 AM, Ian Clelland < > [email protected] > > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Wed Dec 10 2014 at 10:17:38 AM Andrew Grieve < > > [email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > userland means that plugins won't be able to use them unless > every > > > > plugin > > > > > > also includes a copy of the polyfill within it. > > > > > > > > > > > > Looking at our core APIs, seems maybe it's just battery-status > that > > > > will > > > > > > require it. Should we have battery-status include the polyfill > > within > > > > > it? I > > > > > > hope not. I'd hate to get to where several plugins in my app all > > > bundle > > > > > the > > > > > > same polyfill. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I believe that Mozilla's new File API, which I think we're planning > > to > > > > > implement, and which should be as core as File is now, is also > > heavily > > > > > promises-based. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If we move to having the entire cordova.js built using browserify > > > where > > > > > > every plugin gets to contribute to the JS that goes into it - > yes I > > > can > > > > > see > > > > > > this solving this use-case as well. But that also seems to me > like > > a > > > > much > > > > > > larger and much more controversial change. > > > > > > > > > > > > Whether you are for or against promises - they are already here. > > They > > > > > > exists natively on most latest mobile webviews, and every vendor > > has > > > > > > committed to adding them. And they are being used in *most* new > > specs > > > > > that > > > > > > I've seen (sockets, filesystem, permissions, service worker, > fetch) > > > > > > > > > > > > Are there any concrete downsides to putting Promises polyfill > right > > > in > > > > > > cordova-js? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as the promise doesn't clobber the native implementation, > if > > it > > > > > exists, and we can remove it completely from platforms when they > > don't > > > > need > > > > > it anymore, it seems to me like a small price for having this > > available > > > > to > > > > > all platforms. (Other opinions vary, I'm sure, though) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:39 PM, Joe Bowser <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > +1 to userland. I see other approaches causing more problems. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > BTW: The only time I use promises is when the platform > explicitly > > > > > > requires > > > > > > > it, and right now that's just MozillaView. While I think it > > looks > > > > > > awesome, > > > > > > > I view Promises as a luxury right now and not a standard > feature > > as > > > > of > > > > > > yet. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also really wish specs wouldn't rely on code that only exists > > on > > > > the > > > > > > very > > > > > > > latest browsers. It just makes life harder on people who have > to > > > > > > implement > > > > > > > stuff. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
