Ripple as a platform

["Horn, Julian C" <ju...@intel.com>]

I'd like to get feedback from the mailing list about the basic concept of Ripple as a platform, not just on the prototype itself (see various earlier mails on "Ripple as a platform").

The underlying idea of the prototype, as I see it, is to use the plugin.xml format to describe additional files that would be used for emulation of that plugin.  The prototype CLI treats ripple as a platform that is a peer to the other platforms, such as android, windows8, ios and so on.  The idea is to use the CLI "cordova prepare ripple" command to create sources that are suitable for use with Ripple.

The question this raises for me is whether Ripple is best thought of as one platform or as a set of platforms, one for each real platform.  In other words, instead of preparing and emulating "ripple" code, maybe Ripple should emulate "ripple-ios" code when emulating an iOS device, "ripple-android" code when emulating an android device and so on.  The Ripple Cordova 3 support Gord Tanner added follows this model.

One can imagine a different prototype CLI that uses the same extended plugin syntax but makes different CLI changes.  Instead of ripple being another user-visible platform, it could just be a command line switch, as in "cordova prepare windows8 --emulate ripple".  This would tell the CLI to include the contribution of both the windows8 and ripple platforms in the output.

It's obviously simpler to treat ripple as one platform.  The downside is that it makes it impossible to emulate platform-specific source differences.

Platform-specific source differences can arise in two ways.  The "contact list" plugin for example provides functions that only exist on iOS.  These functions are defined in a JavaScript file you only get when you prepare for ios. Platform-specific source differences can also arise from the "merges" folder.  This allows an application developer to supply different files on different platforms. If Ripple is multiple platforms, then the user can test with the sources that would actually be used on the selected device.  If Ripple is one platform, then the user must test with one code base for all devices.  The plugin author decides what the ripple sources will be for the plugin, and the application author decides what that will be for the merges.

At Intel we discussed the one-versus-many question but no clear consensus has emerged. I think it boils down to an interesting philosophical question about what Ripple is or should be trying to be.

Ripple is obvious incapable of emulating many kinds of platform-specific differences.  After all, Ripple executes the program under test in the host system web runtime, not the target system web runtime found on a mobile device.  Typically the host system web runtime is newer and more capable than the mobile counterparts.  Code often works under emulation yet fails or behaves differently on real hardware. Some argue that this proves that Ripple should not be thought of as an impersonation of real devices, but rather as a kind of pseudo-device that doesn't pretend to resemble any real device.  They see the present product as misleading and confusing. Others argue that Ripple should try to imitate a real device as best it can, given the limitations of its technical approach.  They see Ripple like an instruction level simulator that is fast but not cycle-accurate.

So what do you think?  Is Ripple a device impersonator with limitations, or is it more like its own kind of device?  Should Ripple be its own platform, or should it be many platforms?

Re: Ripple as a platform

[Raymond Camden <ra...@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Aug 8, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Horn, Julian C <ju...@intel.com>
wrote:

>
> The underlying idea of the prototype, as I see it, is to use the
> plugin.xml format to describe additional files that would be used for
> emulation of that plugin.  The prototype CLI treats ripple as a platform
> that is a peer to the other platforms, such as android, windows8, ios and
> so on.  The idea is to use the CLI "cordova prepare ripple" command to
> create sources that are suitable for use with Ripple.
>

This would be nice, but I worry how many plugin authors will bother to
write in support. Maybe they will as a "competitive advantage", but, I
worry. ;) Of course, Ripple has long had a concept of, "If I don't know how
to respond to a call, just give me some JSON crap", so as long as that
works we're good.



>
> The question this raises for me is whether Ripple is best thought of as
> one platform or as a set of platforms, one for each real platform.  In
> other words, instead of preparing and emulating "ripple" code, maybe Ripple
> should emulate "ripple-ios" code when emulating an iOS device,
> "ripple-android" code when emulating an android device and so on.  The
> Ripple Cordova 3 support Gord Tanner added follows this model.
>

Remember that the current usage is to allow users to select any device
*after* they have started Ripple. So they fire it up, it defaults to the
last device, and then they can switch the device via a drop down. It isn't
presented as a platform, but rather a drop down of devices.

I'm not saying it has to *stay* that way, just providing context to how it
works now.

As a user, I think I just want to launch Ripple and not a particular
platform.



>
> One can imagine a different prototype CLI that uses the same extended
> plugin syntax but makes different CLI changes.  Instead of ripple being
> another user-visible platform, it could just be a command line switch, as
> in "cordova prepare windows8 --emulate ripple".  This would tell the CLI to
> include the contribution of both the windows8 and ripple platforms in the
> output.
>

If we switch from having device drop downs to platform drop downs, that
would be ok, but I'd still like to be able to switch in the UI.

It's obviously simpler to treat ripple as one platform.  The downside is
> that it makes it impossible to emulate platform-specific source differences.
>

Keep in mind that I think the *primary* use of Ripple, and folks, feel free
to disagree with me, is to test the *non* hardware specific stuff. As I
used to say when I presented on PhoneGap, I'm not so concerned about the
Camera API. I know that crap works. Instead, I want to focus on the non-PG
stuff, like some random remote API. I want to be able to quickly test it
and just mock the device stuff like Camera, GPS, etc.

When it comes to random plugins, like bluetooth for example, I'm ok with
ignoring it or - in the future with plugins supporting a "do this for
Ripple mode", just defaulting to a sane value.

For example, imagine the bar code scanner. I'd be happy with - when running
under Ripple, it simply returned a hard coded value for the scan.

Or, even better, if it popped open a dialog:

* Click here for a default value
* Type here to enter your own value
* Click here to fake a failed scane



>
> Platform-specific source differences can arise in two ways.  The "contact
> list" plugin for example provides functions that only exist on iOS.  These
> functions are defined in a JavaScript file you only get when you prepare
> for ios. Platform-specific source differences can also arise from the
> "merges" folder.  This allows an application developer to supply different
> files on different platforms. If Ripple is multiple platforms, then the
> user can test with the sources that would actually be used on the selected
> device.  If Ripple is one platform, then the user must test with one code
> base for all devices.  The plugin author decides what the ripple sources
> will be for the plugin, and the application author decides what that will
> be for the merges.
>

And again, I worry about what authors will do this. You are asking the
author now to provide mock services for multiple platforms, which may be
asking a lot. Then again, maybe they will do it.

I think the ideal solution would be:
As a plugin author, I can write one JS file that will be used by Ripple. I
put my mock crap in there. Inside my JS I can sniff the current emulated
device and IF I CHOOSE, do crap like, "particular feature X isn't available
on iOS".

This lets the author provide a quick mock for ripple and later, when s/he
has time, provide a better mock (or let someone else do it).

At Intel we discussed the one-versus-many question but no clear consensus
> has emerged. I think it boils down to an interesting philosophical question
> about what Ripple is or should be trying to be.
>

This goes back to what I said above, about how *I* see Ripple being useful:
Let me ignore/mock the PG stuff and focus on UI and other stuff like APIs,
etc.




-- 
===========================================================================
Raymond Camden, Web Developer for Adobe

Email : raymondcamden@gmail.com
Blog : www.raymondcamden.com
Twitter: raymondcamden