Andrew when you say "denote your app as an android library" Your thinking a AAR archive, which includes the cordova-platform core, cordova.js, and plugins native and web assets?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> wrote: > Andrew similar requirement we have for iOS. > If we implement something like that in CLI to have an option to produce a > library instead of an App. > > In theory this is something we have discussed here in IBM, to do something > similar with Cocoa Pods, produce a cocoapod that represent the iOS Cordova > Web View to be easily added to a existing iOS Native App and using Pod is > an easy way to be added and managed. > > > On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:03 AM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Andrew where is this new enhancements documented, Only place I can find >> any documentation is here: >> http://cordova.apache.org/docs/en/4.0.0/guide_platforms_android_webview.md.html#Android%20WebViews >> >> Can you update this Docs? >> >> In addition to having the docs updated I think it will be great >> beneficial if one the Android Gurus do a blog post with tutorial style, >> from end to end on how to do this, and a quick video would not hurt also ;-) >> >> >> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Andrew Grieve <agri...@chromium.org> >> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> > @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 >>> > >>> I've already ported the unit test over to gradle and they are easy to run >>> in Android Studio. There are some instructions in the test/README.md >>> >>> To be clear, the embedding ability was *improved* in 3.7.0, in that you >>> can >>> now control all configurations directly from Java. >>> >>> >>> >>> > >>> > 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> >>> > >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> Carlos Santana >> <csantan...@gmail.com> >> > > > > -- > Carlos Santana > <csantan...@gmail.com> > -- Carlos Santana <csantan...@gmail.com>
