+1 on #1, #2 and #3 - just don't forget to create the issue that makes sure #3 will be taken care of later.
J Am Di., 30. Juli 2019 um 14:10 Uhr schrieb Norman Breau <nor...@normanbreau.com>: > > Hello devs! > > I am writing to gather feedback on the new feature to support building > the new android packaging format: android bundles. Below are the links > to the PRs, but I'll try to provide a brief summary below, then I'll > provide my personal opinion. > > Feature PR: https://github.com/apache/cordova-android/pull/764 > Documentation PR: https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/1009 > > What invoked moving the discussion here is the use of the packageType > property/command line argument. During the course of the PR, it was > decided to mimic the iOS platform use of the packageType build.json > property to decide whether to build an APK or a AAB (bundle) file. It > was then found that for iOS, the packageType build property is a > property mostly related to signing and therefore, the documentation for > this is under "Signing an App". > > For android, building either the APK or a bundle has no relation to > signing, all other build.json properties available for android is a > "signing" property. Because of this, the android documentation for > build.json properties is also organized under a "Signing an App" > section. As you might have guess, the addition of a new packageType > property for android, a property that is more of a "building" property > rather than a "signing" property makes it a little awkward to simply add > to the current documentation without some major reorganizing. > > So what requires discussion is: > > 1) Should android reuse packageType, even if the purpose is slightly > different for iOS? > > 2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", how should the android documentation be > reorganized as to not hide a "build" property under a "Signing an App" > section? > > 3) If #2 is answered yes, should this re-organizing be deferred to a > future PR to get app bundle support out as soon as possible? > > Below now is how I would favour proceeding > > The answer to #1, should be "yes" because the metaphor I think applies > just as well for Android as it does for iOS. While iOS as I understand, > all packageTypes builds an IPA file, they are just signed differently, > and to be consumed differenetly based on the selected packageType. As > for Android, a packageType will build their own different formats, but > they are still packages, just formatted to be differently to be > consumed differently, based on their packageType. > > Thus leading to question #2, I think a "Building the app" section should > be added, which will mimic the format of the existing "Signing the app" > section, but will only include properties or flags related to building > the app. I have provided an example at > https://github.com/apache/cordova-docs/pull/1009#issuecomment-512227371 > > Leading to #3, another contributor have suggested to simply add the > documentation for app bundles in the current documentation format (under > "Signing the app" section) and defer adding the new build section to > another PR. The intention for this is to get the feature out as soon as > possible as the feature request is somewhat highly requested (Over 43 > positive responses on the initial feature request ticket). I don't > really have a strong opinion one way or another therefore my action will > be largely what everybody else thinks I should do here. > > Looking for everyones feedback, > Thanks > > P.S. this is my first major contribution, I hope I didn't make this too > long and I hoped I explained myself clearly. > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cordova.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cordova.apache.org
