Re: Support for WebGL
No, not at this time. BTW: This list is for the development of cordova. For app-development questions, please ask in the Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/phonegap On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 7:44 PM, HABI S RAVI wrote: > hi, > > I am new to cordova..I want to know do Cordova support WebGL in Android?
Support for WebGL
hi, I am new to cordova..I want to know do Cordova support WebGL in Android?
Re: Converting scripts to node
I tend to agree. The problem is certainly not acute enough to matter until sometime after 3 has settled. On 2013-07-13 5:08 PM, "Anis KADRI" wrote: > I think I've voiced my opinion on this topic but I will state it again. I > (and I bet most people) do not like dependencies. You ask people to > download and install SDKs and that is already tedious enough. You now want > them to download an additional thing to make life easier for Cordova Core > Developers and not Cordova users which sounds backwards to me. > The argument that node is cross-platform and Windows is disregarded because > it does not use bash is not a valid one in my opinion. Platforms have to be > tested and you can't only rely on node's cross-platform support. The > introduction of node won't solve the testing aspect. > > 2 things would make me happy. > - Leave things the way they are (bash on *nix and cscript on windows). > - Use node but pre-package the dependency somehow so that users don't even > know that they are using node (I believe BlackBerry does that). > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Filip Maj wrote: > > > I have to agree with Lorin on this one. Windows scripts are getting > > ignored and not maintained, no surprise. Moving to node won't eliminate > > windows neglect but should mitigate the issue of unix fixes not making > > their way into windows scripts. Don't think it's super high priority to > > get done soon, though. > > > > On 7/12/13 10:27 AM, "Brian LeRoux" wrote: > > > > >So, science experiment. That's cool. [1] > > > > > >[1] https://twitter.com/jonathanpenn/status/355696329172844549 > > > > > > > > > > > >On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Filip Maj wrote: > > >> Main benefit here is abstracting away two scripts for *nix & > > >> windows-compatible platforms like android and blackberry. BB already > > >>uses > > >> node for those anyways.. > > >> > > >> On 7/12/13 9:47 AM, "Brian LeRoux" wrote: > > >> > > >>>Most of the scripts themselves shell out to things like adb or > > >>>whatever so putting another layer of scripting abstraction over top > > >>>feels unnecessary (to me). I suppose the benefit is that on Android > > >>>we'd have less code? > > >>> > > >>>Are there other benefits? > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Andrew Grieve > > >>>wrote: > > Cool! > > > > I don't think npm is a good idea for them since that will add > another > > avenue for mistakes to be made. Shelling out to them seems fine. You > > can > > also just require() them if you're sure they aren't going to mess up > > you're > > apps state (e.g. change your CWD), but shelling out is certainly > > safer. > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > > > > > Don't think for android specifically there has been any work on > this > > > > > > On 7/11/13 2:55 PM, "Andrew Grieve" wrote: > > > > > > >We talked about unifying on node post 3.0 for our scripts (e.g. > > >android > > > >create script). > > > > > > > >Was wondering if anyone had started on this? > > > > > > > > >> > > > > >
Re: Converting scripts to node
I think I've voiced my opinion on this topic but I will state it again. I (and I bet most people) do not like dependencies. You ask people to download and install SDKs and that is already tedious enough. You now want them to download an additional thing to make life easier for Cordova Core Developers and not Cordova users which sounds backwards to me. The argument that node is cross-platform and Windows is disregarded because it does not use bash is not a valid one in my opinion. Platforms have to be tested and you can't only rely on node's cross-platform support. The introduction of node won't solve the testing aspect. 2 things would make me happy. - Leave things the way they are (bash on *nix and cscript on windows). - Use node but pre-package the dependency somehow so that users don't even know that they are using node (I believe BlackBerry does that). On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:40 AM, Filip Maj wrote: > I have to agree with Lorin on this one. Windows scripts are getting > ignored and not maintained, no surprise. Moving to node won't eliminate > windows neglect but should mitigate the issue of unix fixes not making > their way into windows scripts. Don't think it's super high priority to > get done soon, though. > > On 7/12/13 10:27 AM, "Brian LeRoux" wrote: > > >So, science experiment. That's cool. [1] > > > >[1] https://twitter.com/jonathanpenn/status/355696329172844549 > > > > > > > >On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 10:07 AM, Filip Maj wrote: > >> Main benefit here is abstracting away two scripts for *nix & > >> windows-compatible platforms like android and blackberry. BB already > >>uses > >> node for those anyways.. > >> > >> On 7/12/13 9:47 AM, "Brian LeRoux" wrote: > >> > >>>Most of the scripts themselves shell out to things like adb or > >>>whatever so putting another layer of scripting abstraction over top > >>>feels unnecessary (to me). I suppose the benefit is that on Android > >>>we'd have less code? > >>> > >>>Are there other benefits? > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:55 PM, Andrew Grieve > >>>wrote: > Cool! > > I don't think npm is a good idea for them since that will add another > avenue for mistakes to be made. Shelling out to them seems fine. You > can > also just require() them if you're sure they aren't going to mess up > you're > apps state (e.g. change your CWD), but shelling out is certainly > safer. > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 6:24 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > > > Don't think for android specifically there has been any work on this > > > > On 7/11/13 2:55 PM, "Andrew Grieve" wrote: > > > > >We talked about unifying on node post 3.0 for our scripts (e.g. > >android > > >create script). > > > > > >Was wondering if anyone had started on this? > > > > > >> > >
Re: Wondering what folks think about the default project
Anis, if it was just a matter of blank-or-default-only that would be fine, but I think we do want a way to start with arbitrary app, and so "blank" is just one extra option (Can even be implemented not as a cli special case, but just as an app template referenced by the already planned generic implementation). -Michal On Sat, Jul 13, 2013 at 12:41 PM, Anis KADRI wrote: > or just `rm -rf www/*` if you don't like the default app. > > Trying to please everyone you'll end up either pleasing no one or > complicating things. > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Wargo, John wrote: > > > cordova create [--shellOnly] > > > > > > -Original Message- > > From: Carlos Santana [mailto:csantan...@gmail.com] > > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 7:09 AM > > To: dev@cordova.apache.org > > Subject: Re: Wondering what folks think about the default project > > > > can it be an option to the cordova cli? > > cordova create [--noHelloApp] > > or > > cordova create [--blankIndexHTML] > > > > You get the point > > > > I vote for default to have defaultApp included. > > It provides gratification of every "Hello World" gives when starting with > > something new. > > > > > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Michael Jackson > >wrote: > > > > > I really like the default app. As a brand new cordova dev it helped me > > > understand how to get started with it. > > > > > > -- > > > Michael Jackson > > > @mjackson > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ray Camden > wrote: > > > > > > > I can add this as a Jira item if it makes sense, but, what do folks > > think > > > > about the following: > > > > > > > > I'd like to propose that the 'default' PG app created by the CLI be > > > > changed. Right now it is cool. Looks neat. But is completely > > unnecessary > > > > after you've after learned how to use PG. It's a great example for > > folks > > > > learning PG, but for those of us who know and just want to get > started > > > > quickly, it actually takes me more time to *remove* the HTML, CSS, > and > > JS > > > > used in the default then it does to create a new project. Not to be > > over > > > > dramatic, but it really is the worst part of the process for me. Then > > > > again, I tend to make quite a few POCs with the CLI so this issue > hits > > me > > > > more often than normal probably. > > > > > > > > I know the CLI is just copying a template (I've blogged on this > > before), > > > > but shouldn't the default be something better for developers? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > Carlos Santana > > > > >
Re: Wondering what folks think about the default project
or just `rm -rf www/*` if you don't like the default app. Trying to please everyone you'll end up either pleasing no one or complicating things. On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Wargo, John wrote: > cordova create [--shellOnly] > > > -Original Message- > From: Carlos Santana [mailto:csantan...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, July 12, 2013 7:09 AM > To: dev@cordova.apache.org > Subject: Re: Wondering what folks think about the default project > > can it be an option to the cordova cli? > cordova create [--noHelloApp] > or > cordova create [--blankIndexHTML] > > You get the point > > I vote for default to have defaultApp included. > It provides gratification of every "Hello World" gives when starting with > something new. > > > > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Michael Jackson >wrote: > > > I really like the default app. As a brand new cordova dev it helped me > > understand how to get started with it. > > > > -- > > Michael Jackson > > @mjackson > > > > > > On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Ray Camden wrote: > > > > > I can add this as a Jira item if it makes sense, but, what do folks > think > > > about the following: > > > > > > I'd like to propose that the 'default' PG app created by the CLI be > > > changed. Right now it is cool. Looks neat. But is completely > unnecessary > > > after you've after learned how to use PG. It's a great example for > folks > > > learning PG, but for those of us who know and just want to get started > > > quickly, it actually takes me more time to *remove* the HTML, CSS, and > JS > > > used in the default then it does to create a new project. Not to be > over > > > dramatic, but it really is the worst part of the process for me. Then > > > again, I tend to make quite a few POCs with the CLI so this issue hits > me > > > more often than normal probably. > > > > > > I know the CLI is just copying a template (I've blogged on this > before), > > > but shouldn't the default be something better for developers? > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Carlos Santana > >
Re: XML schema for plugin.xml and config.xml?
initial draft implementation is ready for feedback, description is in https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CB-4195 (just plugin schema now, not config schema yet). On Jul 10, 2013, at 12:15 PM, Marcel Kinard wrote: > On Jul 9, 2013, at 9:38 PM, Michal Mocny wrote: > >> Seriously though, if the schema is changing isn't that all the more reason >> to support validation so devs can get early confirmation? > > That is exactly my thought. Updating the xsd is relatively easy, and it's > just one file per schema. Handling a new attribute or element is just a few > lines of work. > > On Jul 9, 2013, at 5:56 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> …there is pretty strong argument brewing to move to JSON. > > If that is going to happen, it would be post 3.0, because only 9 days are > remaining, right? > > I can see why JSON would be attractive, but that would also be forcing plugin > authors to re-do their config file that they recently created for 3.0. > Potentially we could use XSL to transform config.xml to config.json > automatically for a bridge period. > > I'll start playing with an XSD and put it out for review. >
Intel app framwork
Hello, I am not sure it is the right place to ask this but I have just played around with intel app framework. It looks really good/fast. I just finished a project with jquery mobile and was really unhappy with the performance. U guys have some use case / experience with it and cordova? Thanks, Loic -- AdNovum Singapore Pte. Ltd. Loïc Pfister, Software Engineer Master of Science MSc in Communication Systems EPFL
jqMobi/ app framework
Hello dev, I am not sure it is the best place to ask this question, but I was wondering if someone here have experience with app framework? I had a look from my iPhone/iPad. It works really nicely. Some of you have experience building app? Cheers, Loic -- AdNovum Singapore Pte. Ltd. Loïc Pfister, Software Engineer Master of Science MSc in Communication Systems EPFL On 13 Jul, 2013, at 10:26, Ian Clelland wrote: > On Fri, Jul 12, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Filip Maj wrote: > >> Anyone get this to work? I'm not seeing any test executions > No, it doesn't look like they're running right now. > > They were running (though failing) for me earlier today, but I was on > commit 0c80083. > > Bisecting between that and HEAD shows that they all stop working at > 01a9607 [WP] remove plugins with an error: > > Running "cordovajs:test" (cordovajs) task > Warning: ENOENT, no such file or directory > 'lib/windowsphone/plugin/windowsphone' Use --force to continue. > > Aborted due to warnings. > > A commit from yesterday (87cc336) catches that exception, but seems to mask > the actual error.
