We haven't worked on it, also curious. Anis, perhaps? On Wed, Dec 10, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Brian LeRoux <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
