@Michal
I would get together with Marcel and Martin, they are our Android goto SME
@Joe
Do we have all the test cases created now are some missing?
How do you run this specific test cases on Android Studio? Google team any
help on gradle to run this test cases on CI I think is very important to
have a healhty CI running test cases on every pull request or commit
Hum I don't know how I feel about the Plugins not working, I think this is
the key on using Cordova.
If I'm just going to have a Web View with no Cordova then I would use In
App Browser.
The whole purpose of Including a "Cordova" Web View in to a full Native
Android App, It's the "Cordova" functionality which resides mostly in the
Plugins!
Maybe I misunderstood your statements about plugins not working.
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 9:31 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, this feature was tested using TDD, and when the tests were re-written
> I assumed that they would be run. In this case, I'll blame Android Studio,
> since we're still battling with the learning curve on that one. (I have no
> clue how to run the new tests from Gradle on the command line, only in
> Android Studio).
>
> The thing is that another refactor removing layouts broke the tests, which
> is how I know that they weren't run. So, I landed a couple of commits to
> refactor the unit tests so that they test this use case with the new API
> and the tests now pass. This works again, and we can update the
> documentation,
>
> There's still the matter of getting the plugins to work, but I'm fine with
> leaving that to be an exercise for the downstreams that support this, and
> not Cordova itself.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:27 PM Michal Mocny <mmo...@chromium.org> wrote:
>
> > Carlos, thats great, then perhaps you could give 4.0 embedded webview a
> > shot to confirm that it is still adequately supported for your customers?
> >
> > I think this thread has been too much talk and not enough trying it out
> in
> > practice. Everyone agrees the use case is important, what's left is to
> > confirm we got it right.
> >
> > -Michal
> >
> > On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 8:58 PM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > I just want to add that Joe is not alone on thinking that are
> developers
> > > with this use case.
> > > For us we have customers that start with Native Android alone, and then
> > > later want to add a Cordova Web View to a portion of their App.
> > > And they want an easy way to add a Cordova Web View.
> > > For 4.x, I would assume that the developer can choose to make this
> > embedded
> > > Cordova Web View CrossWalk based.
> > >
> > >
> > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 10:24 AM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >
> > > > That's why we have tests! I just changed the activity and saw that we
> > > have
> > > > one failure. I'm not sure why this test in particular is failing,
> > since
> > > > there's too many assertions in one method, so I'll have to try and
> > debug
> > > it
> > > > today.
> > > >
> > > > The thing is that if we're deprecating something and replacing it
> with
> > > > something else, we should write tests for it. Releasing a 4.0.x and
> > > > changing how we embed a WebView by changing class names but not
> fixing
> > up
> > > > the deprecation is bizzare.
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, Mar 11, 2015 at 7:15 AM Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org>
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I wanted to make sure that I didn't break the old way of doing
> > things.
> > > > >
> > > > > On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > The main issue is that this isn't documented anywhere, and this
> is
> > > > > > necessary for people to use a Third Party WebView. Also, why
> > didn't
> > > > you
> > > > > > bother updating the test with the new API?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:19 PM Andrew Grieve <
> agri...@chromium.org
> > >
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Here's an example:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ConfigXmlParser parser = new ConfigXmlParser();
> > > > > > > parser.parse(activity);
> > > > > > > webView.init(cordova, parser.getPluginEntries(),
> > > > > > parser.getPreferences());
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Feel free to iterate if you think the API is too obtuse, but I
> > > think
> > > > > it's
> > > > > > > good to allow a file-less mode, and to allow different WebViews
> > to
> > > > have
> > > > > > > different settings.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 8:08 PM, Joe Bowser <bows...@gmail.com>
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Do you have an example of how this would work? This seems to
> > be a
> > > > lot
> > > > > > > more
> > > > > > > > complex than it needs to be.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 5:05 PM Andrew Grieve <
> > > agri...@chromium.org
> > > > >
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It's so that you can have multiple CordovaWebViews that use
> > > > > different
> > > > > > > > > configs within one application. It's also so that you don't
> > > have
> > > > to
> > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > config.xml if you prefer to build up your config in code
> > > instead.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I don't think loadConfig() is deprecated. It has
> > > > > > > > > a @SuppressWarnings("deprecation"), which just silences a
> > > warning
> > > > > > > about
> > > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > > > setting the config of the Config class (which is done for
> > > > backwards
> > > > > > > > > compatibility).
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 3:54 PM, Joe Bowser <
> > bows...@gmail.com>
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > OK, this actually makes using the WebView as a component
> a
> > > lot
> > > > > > > harder,
> > > > > > > > > > since you now have to have this loadConfig method which
> you
> > > > also
> > > > > > > marked
> > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > deprecation required to get all of the necessary
> attributes
> > > out
> > > > > of
> > > > > > > > this.
> > > > > > > > > > I'm pretty sure this is a major step backwards in that
> > people
> > > > > > looking
> > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > use Cordova as a component now have to jump through
> > > additional
> > > > > > hoops
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > this to work. What is the benefit of deprecating the
> > Config
> > > > > static
> > > > > > > > class
> > > > > > > > > > and replacing it with the ConfigXmlParser again? I don't
> > > > remember
> > > > > > why
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > was done.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 9:04 AM Andrew Grieve <
> > > > > agri...@chromium.org
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 11:56 AM, Joe Bowser <
> > > > bows...@gmail.com
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 9, 2015 at 7:39 AM Andrew Grieve <
> > > > > > > agri...@chromium.org
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You can now instantiate a CordovaWebView without a
> > > > > > config.xml,
> > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > without
> > > > > > > > > > > > > using Config. This happened when I added an
> "init()"
> > > > method
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > CordovaWebView. You can pass in a
> CordovaPreferences
> > > > > object,
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > list
> > > > > > > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > PluginEntry. Maybe we just need a better comment on
> > > > Config
> > > > > > > saying
> > > > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > > these instead?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Where does one get this PluginEntry list when they're
> > > > > > embedding a
> > > > > > > > > > > WebView?
> > > > > > > > > > > > This needs to be documented or at least put in the
> test
> > > > that
> > > > > > > tests
> > > > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > > > > > use
> > > > > > > > > > > > case.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > That has nothing to do with InAppBrowser, this is
> > to
> > > do
> > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > embedding
> > > > > > > > > > > > a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > WebView inside an Android application. I don't
> > think
> > > > you
> > > > > > > > > understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mean when I say the embedded use case.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe try explaining a bit more?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Even though you edited the test that explicitly
> covers
> > > this
> > > > > > use,
> > > > > > > > > case,
> > > > > > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > > > > > > even though we've talked about using CordovaWebView
> as
> > an
> > > > > > Android
> > > > > > > > > View
> > > > > > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > > > > > > over a year, you need it explained more?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > So, not everyone wants to use all of Cordova, for
> many
> > > > > reasons.
> > > > > > > > > > Instead,
> > > > > > > > > > > > they really just want to take advantage of the
> WebView
> > > > > > component
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > > > > their
> > > > > > > > > > > > native apps so that they can create hybrid apps that
> > are
> > > > > mostly
> > > > > > > > > native
> > > > > > > > > > > with
> > > > > > > > > > > > only some parts that use Cordova. This is where you
> > > would
> > > > > > > declare
> > > > > > > > > your
> > > > > > > > > > > > view in your layout XML like this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <org.apache.cordova.engine.SystemWebView
> > > > > > > > > > > > android:id="@+id/WebViewComponent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > android:layout_width="match_parent"
> > > > > > > > > > > > android:layout_height="match_parent">
> > > > > > > > > > > > </org.apache.cordova.engine.SystemWebView>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > And then, in the activity start up your view like
> this:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > private CordovaWebView webInterface;
> > > > > > > > > > > > private CordovaInterfaceImpl systemInterface = new
> > > > > > > > > > > > CordovaInterfaceImpl(this);
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > //Set up the webview
> > > > > > > > > > > > SystemWebView webView = (SystemWebView)
> > > > > > > > > > > > findViewById(R.id.WebViewComponent);
> > > > > > > > > > > > webInterface = new CordovaWebViewImpl(this,
> new
> > > > > > > > > > > > SystemWebViewEngine(webView));
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Config.init();
> > > > > > > > > > > > webInterface.init(systemInterface,
> > > > > > > > > Config.getPluginEntries(),
> > > > > > > > > > > > Config.getPreferences());
> > > > > > > > > > > > webView.loadUrl(Config.getStartUrl());
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Right now, we're getting the configuration from the
> > > Config
> > > > > > class,
> > > > > > > > > > because
> > > > > > > > > > > > we at least have access to this. If we don't have
> > this,
> > > > how
> > > > > do
> > > > > > > > > people
> > > > > > > > > > > get
> > > > > > > > > > > > access to the list of plugin entries specified in
> > > > Config.xml?
> > > > > > > I'm
> > > > > > > > > > pretty
> > > > > > > > > > > > sure we still want to support this feature.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Does that make sense?
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I gotcha. So, I think the answer is to use
> > > ConfigXmlParser()
> > > > to
> > > > > > > > extract
> > > > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > > > > information required by init. You shouldn't need the
> call
> > > > > > > > Config.init()
> > > > > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > > > > > all.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Carlos Santana
> > > <csantan...@gmail.com>
> > >
> >
>
--
Carlos Santana
<csantan...@gmail.com>
