Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Couldn't find the thread, but I also thought there we had discussed having the 3.0 release == moving to CLI & having plugins separated. I know PhoneGap Day is in July, and I agree 3.0 for PGD is a great goal, but a major version number bump shouldn't indicate that time has elapsed. There should be some excitement behind it! :) On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > No no. You must be mistaking us w/ the node project. We're shipping 3 > in July yo. > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Braden Shepherdson > wrote: > > Four months? I thought we had agreed that 3.0 doesn't come after 2.9, it > > comes when we're ready. We can do 2.12 if we need to, or having 2.8 > > followed by 3.0. Is there some other timeline I don't know about? > > > > Braden > > > > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > >> To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're > >> working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not > >> build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time. > >> Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make > >> it. > >> > >> > >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson < > bra...@chromium.org> > >> wrote: > >> > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving > to > >> > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and > the > >> > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into > >> plugins > >> > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps > don't > >> > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. > >> > > >> > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep > >> > versioning them to the tools. > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> > > >> >> Offline happens! > >> >> > >> >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to > >> >> that thinking will be the trick. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny > >> wrote: > >> >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the > >> version > >> >> of > >> >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time? > >> >> > > >> >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which > >> can > >> >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not > sure > >> that > >> >> > every app you create should by default include those. You are > right, > >> >> this > >> >> > is worthy of a longer discussion. > >> >> > > >> >> > (p.s. who goes offline?) > >> >> > > >> >> > -Michal > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> Good question. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ > >> core > >> >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize > >> >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to > >> >> >> default to none. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats > open > >> >> too. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve < > >> agri...@chromium.org> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still > >> work > >> >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you > >> >> suggesting > >> >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux > wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and > cache > >> so > >> >> >> >> offline works. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner < > gtan...@gmail.com> > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any > idea > >> what > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> size of all the platforms are? > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson < > >> bra...@chromium.org > >> >> > > >> >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as > >> you > >> >> >> wrote. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform > that's > >> >> running > >> >> >> >> from > >> >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature > >> request > >> >> in > >> >> >> the > >> >> >> >> doc. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > >> >> >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory > can > >> >> have > >> >> >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. > >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> Braden > >> >> >> >>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
In seriousness I am excited! We get to talk about everything that happened this past year. (Lots.) On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > Couldn't find the thread, but I also thought there we had discussed having > the 3.0 release == moving to CLI & having plugins separated. > > I know PhoneGap Day is in July, and I agree 3.0 for PGD is a great goal, > but a major version number bump shouldn't indicate that time has elapsed. > There should be some excitement behind it! :) > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> No no. You must be mistaking us w/ the node project. We're shipping 3 >> in July yo. >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Braden Shepherdson >> wrote: >> > Four months? I thought we had agreed that 3.0 doesn't come after 2.9, it >> > comes when we're ready. We can do 2.12 if we need to, or having 2.8 >> > followed by 3.0. Is there some other timeline I don't know about? >> > >> > Braden >> > >> > >> > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> > >> >> To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're >> >> working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not >> >> build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time. >> >> Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make >> >> it. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson < >> bra...@chromium.org> >> >> wrote: >> >> > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving >> to >> >> > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and >> the >> >> > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into >> >> plugins >> >> > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps >> don't >> >> > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. >> >> > >> >> > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep >> >> > versioning them to the tools. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Offline happens! >> >> >> >> >> >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to >> >> >> that thinking will be the trick. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the >> >> version >> >> >> of >> >> >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which >> >> can >> >> >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not >> sure >> >> that >> >> >> > every app you create should by default include those. You are >> right, >> >> >> this >> >> >> > is worthy of a longer discussion. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > (p.s. who goes offline?) >> >> >> > >> >> >> > -Michal >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Good question. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ >> >> core >> >> >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize >> >> >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to >> >> >> >> default to none. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats >> open >> >> >> too. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> >> agri...@chromium.org> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still >> >> work >> >> >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you >> >> >> suggesting >> >> >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and >> cache >> >> so >> >> >> >> >> offline works. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner < >> gtan...@gmail.com> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any >> idea >> >> what >> >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> >> size of all the platforms are? >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson < >> >> bra...@chromium.org >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as >> >> you >> >> >> >> wrote. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform >> that's >> >> >> running >> >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature >> >> request >> >> >> in >> >> >> >> the >> >>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
No no. You must be mistaking us w/ the node project. We're shipping 3 in July yo. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 10:44 AM, Braden Shepherdson wrote: > Four months? I thought we had agreed that 3.0 doesn't come after 2.9, it > comes when we're ready. We can do 2.12 if we need to, or having 2.8 > followed by 3.0. Is there some other timeline I don't know about? > > Braden > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're >> working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not >> build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time. >> Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make >> it. >> >> >> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson >> wrote: >> > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving to >> > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and the >> > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into >> plugins >> > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps don't >> > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. >> > >> > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep >> > versioning them to the tools. >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> > >> >> Offline happens! >> >> >> >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to >> >> that thinking will be the trick. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny >> wrote: >> >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the >> version >> >> of >> >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time? >> >> > >> >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which >> can >> >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not sure >> that >> >> > every app you create should by default include those. You are right, >> >> this >> >> > is worthy of a longer discussion. >> >> > >> >> > (p.s. who goes offline?) >> >> > >> >> > -Michal >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> Good question. >> >> >> >> >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ >> core >> >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize >> >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to >> >> >> default to none. >> >> >> >> >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open >> >> too. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve < >> agri...@chromium.org> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still >> work >> >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you >> >> suggesting >> >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache >> so >> >> >> >> offline works. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea >> what >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> size of all the platforms are? >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson < >> bra...@chromium.org >> >> > >> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as >> you >> >> >> wrote. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's >> >> running >> >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature >> request >> >> in >> >> >> the >> >> >> >> doc. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android >> >> >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can >> >> have >> >> >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Braden >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package >> for >> >> >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === >> >> >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> We did this because: >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> - has to work offline >> >> >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >> >> >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >> >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't >> really a >> >> >> huge >> >> >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that is
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Four months? I thought we had agreed that 3.0 doesn't come after 2.9, it comes when we're ready. We can do 2.12 if we need to, or having 2.8 followed by 3.0. Is there some other timeline I don't know about? Braden On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 1:39 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're > working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not > build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time. > Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make > it. > > > On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson > wrote: > > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving to > > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and the > > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into > plugins > > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps don't > > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. > > > > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep > > versioning them to the tools. > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > >> Offline happens! > >> > >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to > >> that thinking will be the trick. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny > wrote: > >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the > version > >> of > >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time? > >> > > >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which > can > >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not sure > that > >> > every app you create should by default include those. You are right, > >> this > >> > is worthy of a longer discussion. > >> > > >> > (p.s. who goes offline?) > >> > > >> > -Michal > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> > > >> >> Good question. > >> >> > >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ > core > >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize > >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to > >> >> default to none. > >> >> > >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open > >> too. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve < > agri...@chromium.org> > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still > work > >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. > >> >> > > >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you > >> suggesting > >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache > so > >> >> >> offline works. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner > >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea > what > >> >> the > >> >> >> size of all the platforms are? > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson < > bra...@chromium.org > >> > > >> >> >> wrote: > >> >> >> > > >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as > you > >> >> wrote. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's > >> running > >> >> >> from > >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature > request > >> in > >> >> the > >> >> >> doc. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > >> >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can > >> have > >> >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> Braden > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux > wrote: > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package > for > >> >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === > >> >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> We did this because: > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> - has to work offline > >> >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development > >> >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't > really a > >> >> huge > >> >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already > >> achieved > >> >> by > >> >> >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be > >> improved > >> >> but > >> >> >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin > integration. > >> >> >> >>> > >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
To be clear, I am certain we all agree, but this is the future. We're working towards that future. We simply have too many users to not build the transition path into our releases. Maybe 3.0 is that time. Four months to move everything to plugins only. We'll see if we make it. On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Braden Shepherdson wrote: > I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving to > 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and the > rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into plugins > is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps don't > ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. > > -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep > versioning them to the tools. > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> Offline happens! >> >> I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to >> that thinking will be the trick. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny wrote: >> > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the version >> of >> > your cordova-cli tool at install time? >> > >> > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which can >> > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not sure that >> > every app you create should by default include those. You are right, >> this >> > is worthy of a longer discussion. >> > >> > (p.s. who goes offline?) >> > >> > -Michal >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> > >> >> Good question. >> >> >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ core >> >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize >> >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to >> >> default to none. >> >> >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open >> too. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve >> >> wrote: >> >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work >> >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. >> >> > >> >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you >> suggesting >> >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so >> >> >> offline works. >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what >> >> the >> >> >> size of all the platforms are? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> >> > >> >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson > > >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you >> >> wrote. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's >> running >> >> >> from >> >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request >> in >> >> the >> >> >> doc. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android >> >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can >> have >> >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Braden >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for >> >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === >> >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> We did this because: >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> - has to work offline >> >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >> >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a >> >> huge >> >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already >> achieved >> >> by >> >> >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be >> improved >> >> but >> >> >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. >> >> >> >>> >> >> >> >> >> >>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
I don't think there's a better place for that transition than moving to 3.0, though. It's already a huge change with the CLI and plugins and the rest. Also one of the key advantages to splitting up the core into plugins is that we wanted to separate the permissions so that Cordova apps don't ask for everything all the time, but only what they actually need. -1 to installing all the core plugins by default, and to lockstep versioning them to the tools. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 6:08 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > Offline happens! > > I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to > that thinking will be the trick. > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny wrote: > > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the version > of > > your cordova-cli tool at install time? > > > > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which can > > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not sure that > > every app you create should by default include those. You are right, > this > > is worthy of a longer discussion. > > > > (p.s. who goes offline?) > > > > -Michal > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > >> Good question. > >> > >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ core > >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize > >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to > >> default to none. > >> > >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open > too. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve > >> wrote: > >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work > >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. > >> > > >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you > suggesting > >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> > > >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so > >> >> offline works. > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner > >> wrote: > >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what > >> the > >> >> size of all the platforms are? > >> >> > > >> >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> >> > > >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson > > >> >> wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you > >> wrote. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's > running > >> >> from > >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request > in > >> the > >> >> doc. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can > have > >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Braden > >> >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for > >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === > >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> We did this because: > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> - has to work offline > >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development > >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova > >> >> >>> > >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a > >> huge > >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already > achieved > >> by > >> >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be > improved > >> but > >> >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. > >> >> >>> > >> >> > >> >
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Offline happens! I think by default nobody needs ANY of our APIs but the transition to that thinking will be the trick. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:07 PM, Michal Mocny wrote: > Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the version of > your cordova-cli tool at install time? > > I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which can > optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not sure that > every app you create should by default include those. You are right, this > is worthy of a longer discussion. > > (p.s. who goes offline?) > > -Michal > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> Good question. >> >> My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ core >> plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize >> pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to >> default to none. >> >> My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open too. >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve >> wrote: >> > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work >> > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. >> > >> > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you suggesting >> > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> > >> >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so >> >> offline works. >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner >> wrote: >> >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what >> the >> >> size of all the platforms are? >> >> > >> >> > Sent from my iPhone >> >> > >> >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you >> wrote. >> >> >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running >> >> from >> >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in >> the >> >> doc. >> >> >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android >> >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have >> >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. >> >> >> >> >> >> Braden >> >> >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for >> >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === >> >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We did this because: >> >> >>> >> >> >>> - has to work offline >> >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >> >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >> >> >>> >> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a >> huge >> >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved >> by >> >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved >> but >> >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. >> >> >>> >> >> >>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Hmm, but then the versioning of the core plugins is tied to the version of your cordova-cli tool at install time? I'm not opposed to installing cordova-core plugins by default which can optionally be used as a fallback when or something, but I'm not sure that every app you create should by default include those. You are right, this is worthy of a longer discussion. (p.s. who goes offline?) -Michal On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 4:01 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > Good question. > > My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ core > plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize > pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to > default to none. > > My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open too. > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve > wrote: > > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work > > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. > > > > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you suggesting > > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? > > > > > > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so > >> offline works. > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner > wrote: > >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what > the > >> size of all the platforms are? > >> > > >> > Sent from my iPhone > >> > > >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson > >> wrote: > >> > > >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you > wrote. > >> >> > >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running > >> from > >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in > the > >> doc. > >> >> > >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have > >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. > >> >> > >> >> Braden > >> >> > >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> >> > >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for > >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === > >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). > >> >>> > >> >>> We did this because: > >> >>> > >> >>> - has to work offline > >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development > >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova > >> >>> > >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a > huge > >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved > by > >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved > but > >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. > >> >>> > >> >
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Good question. My intuition is saying for as long as 3.x is around we preload w/ core plugins. We'll do as such w/ the PhoneGap distribution to minimize pain. Once ppl are used to the tools they'll be asking for us to default to none. My thoughts where that we'd start that way w/ Cordova but thats open too. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 12:51 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. > > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you suggesting > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so >> offline works. >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner wrote: >> > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what the >> size of all the platforms are? >> > >> > Sent from my iPhone >> > >> > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson >> wrote: >> > >> >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you wrote. >> >> >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running >> from >> >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in the >> doc. >> >> >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android >> >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have >> >> whatever locally patched code I want. >> >> >> >> Braden >> >> >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >> >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for >> >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === >> >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >> >>> >> >>> We did this because: >> >>> >> >>> - has to work offline >> >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >> >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >> >>> >> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a huge >> >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved by >> >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved but >> >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. >> >>> >>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
If you previously cloned platforms and plugins into some global location, you should be able to create a new HelloWorld app while offline, by using --link (for both platforms and plugins). Does that work? On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 3:51 PM, Andrew Grieve wrote: > Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work > against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. > > What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you suggesting > that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? > > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > > It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so > > offline works. > > > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner wrote: > > > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what the > > size of all the platforms are? > > > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > > > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson > > wrote: > > > > > >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you > wrote. > > >> > > >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running > > from > > >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in > the > > doc. > > >> > > >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > > >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have > > >> whatever locally patched code I want. > > >> > > >> Braden > > >> > > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > > >> > > >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for > > >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === > > >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). > > >>> > > >>> We did this because: > > >>> > > >>> - has to work offline > > >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development > > >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova > > >>> > > >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a > huge > > >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved > by > > >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved > but > > >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. > > >>> > > >
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
Yep, my biggest concern is that we are able to use CLI but still work against master. I think braden's ask covers that though. What good is working offline if you have no plugins? Are you suggesting that we also include some set of plugins inside of cordova-cli? On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 2:13 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so > offline works. > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner wrote: > > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what the > size of all the platforms are? > > > > Sent from my iPhone > > > > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson > wrote: > > > >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you wrote. > >> > >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running > from > >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in the > doc. > >> > >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have > >> whatever locally patched code I want. > >> > >> Braden > >> > >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> > >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for > >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === > >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). > >>> > >>> We did this because: > >>> > >>> - has to work offline > >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development > >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova > >>> > >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a huge > >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved by > >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved but > >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. > >>> >
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
It big. Certainly would be more efficient to lazy load, and cache so offline works. On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Gord Tanner wrote: > There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what the size > of all the platforms are? > > Sent from my iPhone > > On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson wrote: > >> I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you wrote. >> >> However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running from >> somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in the doc. >> >> So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android >> --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have >> whatever locally patched code I want. >> >> Braden >> >> On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: >> >>> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for >>> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === >>> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >>> >>> We did this because: >>> >>> - has to work offline >>> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >>> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >>> >>> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a huge >>> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved by >>> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved but >>> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. >>>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
There was some issues over download size for our cli, any idea what the size of all the platforms are? Sent from my iPhone On 2013-03-22, at 1:42 PM, Braden Shepherdson wrote: > I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you wrote. > > However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running from > somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in the doc. > > So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android > --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have > whatever locally patched code I want. > > Braden > > On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > >> Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for >> cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === >> Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). >> >> We did this because: >> >> - has to work offline >> - cannot have a Git dep to do development >> - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova >> >> We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a huge >> deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved by >> vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved but >> its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. >>
Re: [cordova-cli] vendoring the platforms instead of lazy download
I'm content to have the vendoring, it has some advantages as you wrote. However, I would also very much like to add a platform that's running from somewhere on my local disk, as I described in my feature request in the doc. So I propose a flag like cordova platform add android --target=../../cordova-android where that local directory can have whatever locally patched code I want. Braden On Fri, Mar 22, 2013 at 1:37 PM, Brian LeRoux wrote: > Right now we put the release of Cordova into the npm package for > cordova-cli and we version lock the two. (Codova/CLI 2.5.x === > Cordova/Platform 2.5.latest). > > We did this because: > > - has to work offline > - cannot have a Git dep to do development > - issue tracking locked to the real version of Cordova > > We can solve all these issues. The code to do that isn't really a huge > deal. But to add it we gain very little that isn't already achieved by > vendoring. I'd like for us to be aware the current can be improved but > its low priority compared to, say, ripple and plugin integration. >
