You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@cordova.apache.org by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> on 2013/01/03 22:44:01 UTC

Review of Core Platforms

Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:

----

Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova project.

* iOS
* Android
* BlackBerry
* Windows Phone
* Bada

Sunset: These are platforms considered to be on their way out of general
consumer availability. We offer code, but not distribution of these
platforms.

* Symbian
* webOS

Sunrise: These are new platforms coming to Apache Cordova with some
development under way.

* Tizen
* Qt

Horizon: These are platforms that we hope to see supported by Apache
Cordova in the future!

* B2G

----


Some propositions + questions, all up for debate of course:

- I'm not sure about Bada. Last I checked Bada's passing % of mobile-spec
is fairly weak (some features are just not doable; correct me if I'm
wrong). I would like to propose that a platform is eligible for "Core" if
they have >90% passing rate on mobile-spec. I would vote to move it into a
new "Marginal" category, along with, say, cordova-mac or cordova-qt. Also,
Bada-wac, how does this fit in?
- Where does the ubuntu phone fit into this?
- I would suggest we schedule removal of the BlackBerry 7 (java) and
Playbook (Air) implementations, and have our BlackBerry implementation be
BB10 only moving forward.
- The "Windows Phone" category above covers both 7 and 8? What about
Windows 8? 

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/PlatformSupport

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.

Would love more #'s on Bada and BB before we get too aggressive. I
updated the Horizon section to Firefox OS. (Ubuntu is supported by way
of our Qt codebase.)

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 2:44 PM, Ken Wallis <kw...@rim.com> wrote:
> Sounds like a plan.  I'll do some digging on what plans we will have on publishing market numbers, publically or otherwise. ;)
>
> Thanks.
> --
>
> Ken Wallis
>
> Product Manager – BlackBerry WebWorks
>
> Research In Motion
>
> (905) 629-4746 x14369
>
> ________________________________________
> From: Filip Maj [fil@adobe.com]
> Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:36 PM
> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> Subject: Re: Review of Core Platforms
>
> Certainly, if RIM can provide some % numbers of people using each OS,
> that'd be helpful! Kind of like the Android OS pie chart breakdown of
> users across different OS versions.
>
> In the past, at some point we decided to stop supporting BB OS 5 and 4.6,
> and removed those Cordova implementations. Just wanted to raise the idea
> of doing something similar for OS 7 and PlayBook once those two platforms
> get to the same level of usage.
>
> On 1/3/13 2:21 PM, "Ken Wallis" <kw...@rim.com> wrote:
>
>>What does "schedule for removal mean"?  Perhaps we can tie removal to
>>some specific metric that we might be able to assist with?  BB7 will
>>remain a fairly large base of devices for a while, particularly in
>>emerging markets and enterprise, where I think we will continue to see a
>>large focus on web-based mobile applications.
>>
>>While I wholeheartedly support BlackBerry 10 as the primary platform for
>>new development, I would like to see support for BB7 continue while it
>>remains a large customer base.
>>
>>Thoughts?
>>
>>Thanks!
>>
>>--
>>
>>Ken Wallis
>>
>>Product Manager  BlackBerry WebWorks
>>
>>Research In Motion
>>
>>(905) 629-4746 x14369
>>
>>________________________________________
>>From: Filip Maj [fil@adobe.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:44 PM
>>To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>>Subject: Review of Core Platforms
>>
>>Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:
>>
>>----
>>
>>Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova
>>project.
>>
>>* iOS
>>* Android
>>* BlackBerry
>>* Windows Phone
>>* Bada
>>
>>Sunset: These are platforms considered to be on their way out of general
>>consumer availability. We offer code, but not distribution of these
>>platforms.
>>
>>* Symbian
>>* webOS
>>
>>Sunrise: These are new platforms coming to Apache Cordova with some
>>development under way.
>>
>>* Tizen
>>* Qt
>>
>>Horizon: These are platforms that we hope to see supported by Apache
>>Cordova in the future!
>>
>>* B2G
>>
>>----
>>
>>
>>Some propositions + questions, all up for debate of course:
>>
>>- I'm not sure about Bada. Last I checked Bada's passing % of mobile-spec
>>is fairly weak (some features are just not doable; correct me if I'm
>>wrong). I would like to propose that a platform is eligible for "Core" if
>>they have >90% passing rate on mobile-spec. I would vote to move it into a
>>new "Marginal" category, along with, say, cordova-mac or cordova-qt. Also,
>>Bada-wac, how does this fit in?
>>- Where does the ubuntu phone fit into this?
>>- I would suggest we schedule removal of the BlackBerry 7 (java) and
>>Playbook (Air) implementations, and have our BlackBerry implementation be
>>BB10 only moving forward.
>>- The "Windows Phone" category above covers both 7 and 8? What about
>>Windows 8?
>>
>>[1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/PlatformSupport
>>
>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>>information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>>solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>>non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>>transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>>this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>>reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>>authorized and may be unlawful.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

RE: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Ken Wallis <kw...@rim.com>.

Sounds like a plan.  I'll do some digging on what plans we will have on publishing market numbers, publically or otherwise. ;)

Thanks.
--

Ken Wallis

Product Manager – BlackBerry WebWorks

Research In Motion

(905) 629-4746 x14369

________________________________________
From: Filip Maj [fil@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 5:36 PM
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Subject: Re: Review of Core Platforms

Certainly, if RIM can provide some % numbers of people using each OS,
that'd be helpful! Kind of like the Android OS pie chart breakdown of
users across different OS versions.

In the past, at some point we decided to stop supporting BB OS 5 and 4.6,
and removed those Cordova implementations. Just wanted to raise the idea
of doing something similar for OS 7 and PlayBook once those two platforms
get to the same level of usage.

On 1/3/13 2:21 PM, "Ken Wallis" <kw...@rim.com> wrote:

>What does "schedule for removal mean"?  Perhaps we can tie removal to
>some specific metric that we might be able to assist with?  BB7 will
>remain a fairly large base of devices for a while, particularly in
>emerging markets and enterprise, where I think we will continue to see a
>large focus on web-based mobile applications.
>
>While I wholeheartedly support BlackBerry 10 as the primary platform for
>new development, I would like to see support for BB7 continue while it
>remains a large customer base.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>
>Ken Wallis
>
>Product Manager  BlackBerry WebWorks
>
>Research In Motion
>
>(905) 629-4746 x14369
>
>________________________________________
>From: Filip Maj [fil@adobe.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:44 PM
>To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>Subject: Review of Core Platforms
>
>Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:
>
>----
>
>Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova
>project.
>
>* iOS
>* Android
>* BlackBerry
>* Windows Phone
>* Bada
>
>Sunset: These are platforms considered to be on their way out of general
>consumer availability. We offer code, but not distribution of these
>platforms.
>
>* Symbian
>* webOS
>
>Sunrise: These are new platforms coming to Apache Cordova with some
>development under way.
>
>* Tizen
>* Qt
>
>Horizon: These are platforms that we hope to see supported by Apache
>Cordova in the future!
>
>* B2G
>
>----
>
>
>Some propositions + questions, all up for debate of course:
>
>- I'm not sure about Bada. Last I checked Bada's passing % of mobile-spec
>is fairly weak (some features are just not doable; correct me if I'm
>wrong). I would like to propose that a platform is eligible for "Core" if
>they have >90% passing rate on mobile-spec. I would vote to move it into a
>new "Marginal" category, along with, say, cordova-mac or cordova-qt. Also,
>Bada-wac, how does this fit in?
>- Where does the ubuntu phone fit into this?
>- I would suggest we schedule removal of the BlackBerry 7 (java) and
>Playbook (Air) implementations, and have our BlackBerry implementation be
>BB10 only moving forward.
>- The "Windows Phone" category above covers both 7 and 8? What about
>Windows 8?
>
>[1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/PlatformSupport
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>authorized and may be unlawful.


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

RE: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Josh Soref <js...@rim.com>.

Filip Maj wrote:
> In the past, at some point we decided to stop supporting BB OS 5 and 4.6,
> and removed those Cordova implementations. Just wanted to raise the idea
> of doing something similar for OS 7 and PlayBook once those two platforms
> get to the same level of usage.

I believe that we're expecting all PlayBook users to upgrade from 1.x/2.x to BB10 at some point, so in theory the EOL for PlayBook 1.x/2.x support could come long before the EOL for OS 7....

---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.

Certainly, if RIM can provide some % numbers of people using each OS,
that'd be helpful! Kind of like the Android OS pie chart breakdown of
users across different OS versions.

In the past, at some point we decided to stop supporting BB OS 5 and 4.6,
and removed those Cordova implementations. Just wanted to raise the idea
of doing something similar for OS 7 and PlayBook once those two platforms
get to the same level of usage.

On 1/3/13 2:21 PM, "Ken Wallis" <kw...@rim.com> wrote:

>What does "schedule for removal mean"?  Perhaps we can tie removal to
>some specific metric that we might be able to assist with?  BB7 will
>remain a fairly large base of devices for a while, particularly in
>emerging markets and enterprise, where I think we will continue to see a
>large focus on web-based mobile applications.
>
>While I wholeheartedly support BlackBerry 10 as the primary platform for
>new development, I would like to see support for BB7 continue while it
>remains a large customer base.
>
>Thoughts?
>
>Thanks!
>
>--
>
>Ken Wallis
>
>Product Manager  BlackBerry WebWorks
>
>Research In Motion
>
>(905) 629-4746 x14369
>
>________________________________________
>From: Filip Maj [fil@adobe.com]
>Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:44 PM
>To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>Subject: Review of Core Platforms
>
>Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:
>
>----
>
>Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova
>project.
>
>* iOS
>* Android
>* BlackBerry
>* Windows Phone
>* Bada
>
>Sunset: These are platforms considered to be on their way out of general
>consumer availability. We offer code, but not distribution of these
>platforms.
>
>* Symbian
>* webOS
>
>Sunrise: These are new platforms coming to Apache Cordova with some
>development under way.
>
>* Tizen
>* Qt
>
>Horizon: These are platforms that we hope to see supported by Apache
>Cordova in the future!
>
>* B2G
>
>----
>
>
>Some propositions + questions, all up for debate of course:
>
>- I'm not sure about Bada. Last I checked Bada's passing % of mobile-spec
>is fairly weak (some features are just not doable; correct me if I'm
>wrong). I would like to propose that a platform is eligible for "Core" if
>they have >90% passing rate on mobile-spec. I would vote to move it into a
>new "Marginal" category, along with, say, cordova-mac or cordova-qt. Also,
>Bada-wac, how does this fit in?
>- Where does the ubuntu phone fit into this?
>- I would suggest we schedule removal of the BlackBerry 7 (java) and
>Playbook (Air) implementations, and have our BlackBerry implementation be
>BB10 only moving forward.
>- The "Windows Phone" category above covers both 7 and 8? What about
>Windows 8?
>
>[1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/PlatformSupport
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential
>information, privileged material (including material protected by the
>solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute
>non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than
>the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this
>transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete
>this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or
>reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not
>authorized and may be unlawful.

RE: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Ken Wallis <kw...@rim.com>.

What does "schedule for removal mean"?  Perhaps we can tie removal to some specific metric that we might be able to assist with?  BB7 will remain a fairly large base of devices for a while, particularly in emerging markets and enterprise, where I think we will continue to see a large focus on web-based mobile applications.

While I wholeheartedly support BlackBerry 10 as the primary platform for new development, I would like to see support for BB7 continue while it remains a large customer base.

Thoughts?

Thanks!

--

Ken Wallis

Product Manager – BlackBerry WebWorks

Research In Motion

(905) 629-4746 x14369

________________________________________
From: Filip Maj [fil@adobe.com]
Sent: Thursday, January 03, 2013 4:44 PM
To: dev@cordova.apache.org
Subject: Review of Core Platforms

Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:

----

Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova project.

* iOS
* Android
* BlackBerry
* Windows Phone
* Bada

Sunset: These are platforms considered to be on their way out of general
consumer availability. We offer code, but not distribution of these
platforms.

* Symbian
* webOS

Sunrise: These are new platforms coming to Apache Cordova with some
development under way.

* Tizen
* Qt

Horizon: These are platforms that we hope to see supported by Apache
Cordova in the future!

* B2G

----


Some propositions + questions, all up for debate of course:

- I'm not sure about Bada. Last I checked Bada's passing % of mobile-spec
is fairly weak (some features are just not doable; correct me if I'm
wrong). I would like to propose that a platform is eligible for "Core" if
they have >90% passing rate on mobile-spec. I would vote to move it into a
new "Marginal" category, along with, say, cordova-mac or cordova-qt. Also,
Bada-wac, how does this fit in?
- Where does the ubuntu phone fit into this?
- I would suggest we schedule removal of the BlackBerry 7 (java) and
Playbook (Air) implementations, and have our BlackBerry implementation be
BB10 only moving forward.
- The "Windows Phone" category above covers both 7 and 8? What about
Windows 8?

[1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/PlatformSupport


---------------------------------------------------------------------
This transmission (including any attachments) may contain confidential information, privileged material (including material protected by the solicitor-client or other applicable privileges), or constitute non-public information. Any use of this information by anyone other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you have received this transmission in error, please immediately reply to the sender and delete this information from your system. Use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this transmission by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful.

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.

Ok. So I removed 'sunrise', updated the definition text to include
what was discussed here, and moved Bada to sunset.

I noticed Windows 8 made its way into our core platforms without any
mention in this thread. I have no objection to this, though I'm not
sure it implements the entirety of the definition we describe.



On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 4:50 AM, Anis KADRI <an...@gmail.com> wrote:
> +1 for bada removal from core platforms. Samsung is not even working on it
> anymore. "We're focused on Tizen" is what their marketing people told me
> last time I asked them about it.
> I think we should ship only platforms that matter (i.e platforms that
> appear on Analyst's market share numbers) and document how to build the
> others from source (because people do use them even if they're not
> necessarily loud about it).
>
>
> On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> >Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
>> >going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
>> >is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
>> >expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
>> >
>> >Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
>> >circulation, providing:
>> >
>> >- A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
>> >- Standard set of low level CLI tools
>> >- Embeddable (if possible)
>> >- InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
>> >- [what else?]
>>
>> A native plugin API?
>>
>>

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Anis KADRI <an...@gmail.com>.

+1 for bada removal from core platforms. Samsung is not even working on it
anymore. "We're focused on Tizen" is what their marketing people told me
last time I asked them about it.
I think we should ship only platforms that matter (i.e platforms that
appear on Analyst's market share numbers) and document how to build the
others from source (because people do use them even if they're not
necessarily loud about it).


On Sat, Jan 5, 2013 at 3:32 AM, Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com> wrote:

>
> >Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
> >going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
> >is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
> >expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
> >
> >Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
> >circulation, providing:
> >
> >- A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
> >- Standard set of low level CLI tools
> >- Embeddable (if possible)
> >- InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
> >- [what else?]
>
> A native plugin API?
>
>

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Jesse <pu...@gmail.com>.

Some important criteria in my mind:
- are there recent contributions, and active contributors?
- is there a getting-started guide, and are quirks for existing APIs
documented?
- is there a jira component that people can submit defects under?

Ultimately I don't see value in defining things any further than just
listing what platforms are supported.  What is the use of having something
called 'core' and having some platforms, and not others in it?   We can
define in more detail what we call 'supported' or 'level of support', but
ultimately I see this as a slope and not a cliff ...

Maybe instead of calling something 'sunset' we should just list the date of
last contribution, or list the last version number where there were
contributions.






On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 3:36 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Yup
>
> On Sunday, January 6, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote:
>
> > trying to understand, you mean the label of core vs whatever is
> > meaningless but you do like having a baseline set of reqs for the
> > impl?
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > I don't think it's good to be prescriptive about what a platform is -
> > code
> > > and tests (based around that list of things @brian mentioned plus the
> > > plugin API) should determine what a platform is.
> > >
> > > If someone wants to contribute code and tests to create a platform they
> > > should be able to do so. There are places where Symbian devices are
> > popular
> > > and in circulation - if someone wants to create a platform for that in
> > > Cordova they should be able to without having to convince you to add it
> > to
> > > the core platforms on the wiki.
> > >
> > > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote:
> > >
> > >> Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
> > >> going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
> > >> is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
> > >> expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
> > >>
> > >> Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
> > >> circulation, providing:
> > >>
> > >> - A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
> > >> - Standard set of low level CLI tools
> > >> - Embeddable (if possible)
> > >> - InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
> > >> - [what else?]
> > >>
> > >> (I am also assuming that even though core plugins will be removed from
> > >> platforms we are going to continue maintaining those basic device
> > >> APIs.)
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Dave Johnson <
> dave.c.johnson@gmail.com>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> > If we are moving towards a world where all that a platform has to do
> > is
> > >> > implement the bridge / hack / ffi / whatever you want to call the
> > message
> > >> > passing from webview to native such that a developer can compose
> apps
> > >> from
> > >> > available plugins, then is there any need for distinction between
> > core or
> > >> > otherwise platforms? If people want to contribute, maintain and test
> > the
> > >> > bridge code for a platform does that not make it core?
> > >> >
> > >> > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Ben Combee wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >> Yeah, there is a bit of work happening in Open webOS right now...
> > We've
> > >> got
> > >> >> ports to the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 hardware that are actively
> > being
> > >> >> worked on by the community, and we've also got some x86 hardware
> > working
> > >> >> with the webOS runtime environment being hosted on Ubuntu.... and
> > then
> > >> >> there's the stuff that we've not announced yet. :)
> > >> >>
> > >> >> I expect there will be a bit of work around Cordova and webOS this
> > year.
> > >> >> We just published an article on using Enyo 2 with Cordova for webOS
> > >> apps (
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >>
> >
> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
> > >> >> ),
> > >> >> and as we evolve Open webOS, we're picking Cordova as our main
> > runtime
> > >> to
> > >> >> handle letting various web frameworks (including Enyo 2) run on
> Open
> > >> webOS
> > >> >> devices, handling any adaptation from our built-in APIs to more
> > standard
> > >> >> methods.
> > >> >>
> > >> >>
> > >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> > >> >>
> > >> >> > Its certainly up for debate, while webOS still is out there it is
> > not
> > >> >> > shipping on any devices, nor has it for a couple of years.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > However, we are seeing an interesting trend towards web operating
> > >> >> > systems: chrome, windows, firefox, and tizen. This puts webOS in
> > some
> > >> >> > good company and given the trend I could see interest piquing
> again
> > >> >> > this year if consumers have an easy way to get said bits onto an
> > >> >> > unlocked device.
> > >> >> >
> > >> >> > Markus is there a way to install webOS on Android devices yet?
>



-- 
@purplecabbage
risingj.com

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>.

Yup

On Sunday, January 6, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote:

> trying to understand, you mean the label of core vs whatever is
> meaningless but you do like having a baseline set of reqs for the
> impl?
>
> On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > I don't think it's good to be prescriptive about what a platform is -
> code
> > and tests (based around that list of things @brian mentioned plus the
> > plugin API) should determine what a platform is.
> >
> > If someone wants to contribute code and tests to create a platform they
> > should be able to do so. There are places where Symbian devices are
> popular
> > and in circulation - if someone wants to create a platform for that in
> > Cordova they should be able to without having to convince you to add it
> to
> > the core platforms on the wiki.
> >
> > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote:
> >
> >> Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
> >> going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
> >> is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
> >> expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
> >>
> >> Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
> >> circulation, providing:
> >>
> >> - A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
> >> - Standard set of low level CLI tools
> >> - Embeddable (if possible)
> >> - InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
> >> - [what else?]
> >>
> >> (I am also assuming that even though core plugins will be removed from
> >> platforms we are going to continue maintaining those basic device
> >> APIs.)
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > If we are moving towards a world where all that a platform has to do
> is
> >> > implement the bridge / hack / ffi / whatever you want to call the
> message
> >> > passing from webview to native such that a developer can compose apps
> >> from
> >> > available plugins, then is there any need for distinction between
> core or
> >> > otherwise platforms? If people want to contribute, maintain and test
> the
> >> > bridge code for a platform does that not make it core?
> >> >
> >> > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Ben Combee wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Yeah, there is a bit of work happening in Open webOS right now...
> We've
> >> got
> >> >> ports to the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 hardware that are actively
> being
> >> >> worked on by the community, and we've also got some x86 hardware
> working
> >> >> with the webOS runtime environment being hosted on Ubuntu.... and
> then
> >> >> there's the stuff that we've not announced yet. :)
> >> >>
> >> >> I expect there will be a bit of work around Cordova and webOS this
> year.
> >> >> We just published an article on using Enyo 2 with Cordova for webOS
> >> apps (
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >>
> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
> >> >> ),
> >> >> and as we evolve Open webOS, we're picking Cordova as our main
> runtime
> >> to
> >> >> handle letting various web frameworks (including Enyo 2) run on Open
> >> webOS
> >> >> devices, handling any adaptation from our built-in APIs to more
> standard
> >> >> methods.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Its certainly up for debate, while webOS still is out there it is
> not
> >> >> > shipping on any devices, nor has it for a couple of years.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > However, we are seeing an interesting trend towards web operating
> >> >> > systems: chrome, windows, firefox, and tizen. This puts webOS in
> some
> >> >> > good company and given the trend I could see interest piquing again
> >> >> > this year if consumers have an easy way to get said bits onto an
> >> >> > unlocked device.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Markus is there a way to install webOS on Android devices yet?

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.

trying to understand, you mean the label of core vs whatever is
meaningless but you do like having a baseline set of reqs for the
impl?

On Sun, Jan 6, 2013 at 2:04 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I don't think it's good to be prescriptive about what a platform is - code
> and tests (based around that list of things @brian mentioned plus the
> plugin API) should determine what a platform is.
>
> If someone wants to contribute code and tests to create a platform they
> should be able to do so. There are places where Symbian devices are popular
> and in circulation - if someone wants to create a platform for that in
> Cordova they should be able to without having to convince you to add it to
> the core platforms on the wiki.
>
> On Friday, January 4, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote:
>
>> Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
>> going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
>> is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
>> expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
>>
>> Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
>> circulation, providing:
>>
>> - A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
>> - Standard set of low level CLI tools
>> - Embeddable (if possible)
>> - InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
>> - [what else?]
>>
>> (I am also assuming that even though core plugins will be removed from
>> platforms we are going to continue maintaining those basic device
>> APIs.)
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > If we are moving towards a world where all that a platform has to do is
>> > implement the bridge / hack / ffi / whatever you want to call the message
>> > passing from webview to native such that a developer can compose apps
>> from
>> > available plugins, then is there any need for distinction between core or
>> > otherwise platforms? If people want to contribute, maintain and test the
>> > bridge code for a platform does that not make it core?
>> >
>> > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Ben Combee wrote:
>> >
>> >> Yeah, there is a bit of work happening in Open webOS right now... We've
>> got
>> >> ports to the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 hardware that are actively being
>> >> worked on by the community, and we've also got some x86 hardware working
>> >> with the webOS runtime environment being hosted on Ubuntu.... and then
>> >> there's the stuff that we've not announced yet. :)
>> >>
>> >> I expect there will be a bit of work around Cordova and webOS this year.
>> >> We just published an article on using Enyo 2 with Cordova for webOS
>> apps (
>> >>
>> >>
>> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
>> >> ),
>> >> and as we evolve Open webOS, we're picking Cordova as our main runtime
>> to
>> >> handle letting various web frameworks (including Enyo 2) run on Open
>> webOS
>> >> devices, handling any adaptation from our built-in APIs to more standard
>> >> methods.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Its certainly up for debate, while webOS still is out there it is not
>> >> > shipping on any devices, nor has it for a couple of years.
>> >> >
>> >> > However, we are seeing an interesting trend towards web operating
>> >> > systems: chrome, windows, firefox, and tizen. This puts webOS in some
>> >> > good company and given the trend I could see interest piquing again
>> >> > this year if consumers have an easy way to get said bits onto an
>> >> > unlocked device.
>> >> >
>> >> > Markus is there a way to install webOS on Android devices yet? Maybe
>> >> > this is something we can help get going.
>> >> >
>> >> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > > WebOS still gets distributed unlike Symbian.
>> >> > >
>> >> > > -Steve
>> >> > >
>> >> > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Leutwyler, Markus
>> >> > > <ma...@hp.com>wrote:
>> >> > >
>> >> > >> Should we put Open webOS/webOS back to the Core Platforms since
>> >> > Cordova's
>> >> > >> importance is publicly documented?
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> See
>> >> > >>
>> >> >
>> >>
>> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Markus
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> >> > >> From: Filip Maj [mailto:fil@adobe.com]
>> >> > >> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 22:44
>> >> > >> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>> >> > >> Subject: Review of Core Platforms
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> ----
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova
>> >> > project.
>> >> > >>
>> >> > >> * iOS
>> >> > >> * Android
>> >> > >> * BlackBerr

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>.

I don't think it's good to be prescriptive about what a platform is - code
and tests (based around that list of things @brian mentioned plus the
plugin API) should determine what a platform is.

If someone wants to contribute code and tests to create a platform they
should be able to do so. There are places where Symbian devices are popular
and in circulation - if someone wants to create a platform for that in
Cordova they should be able to without having to convince you to add it to
the core platforms on the wiki.

On Friday, January 4, 2013, Brian LeRoux wrote:

> Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
> going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
> is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
> expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
>
> Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
> circulation, providing:
>
> - A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
> - Standard set of low level CLI tools
> - Embeddable (if possible)
> - InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
> - [what else?]
>
> (I am also assuming that even though core plugins will be removed from
> platforms we are going to continue maintaining those basic device
> APIs.)
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > If we are moving towards a world where all that a platform has to do is
> > implement the bridge / hack / ffi / whatever you want to call the message
> > passing from webview to native such that a developer can compose apps
> from
> > available plugins, then is there any need for distinction between core or
> > otherwise platforms? If people want to contribute, maintain and test the
> > bridge code for a platform does that not make it core?
> >
> > On Friday, January 4, 2013, Ben Combee wrote:
> >
> >> Yeah, there is a bit of work happening in Open webOS right now... We've
> got
> >> ports to the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 hardware that are actively being
> >> worked on by the community, and we've also got some x86 hardware working
> >> with the webOS runtime environment being hosted on Ubuntu.... and then
> >> there's the stuff that we've not announced yet. :)
> >>
> >> I expect there will be a bit of work around Cordova and webOS this year.
> >> We just published an article on using Enyo 2 with Cordova for webOS
> apps (
> >>
> >>
> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
> >> ),
> >> and as we evolve Open webOS, we're picking Cordova as our main runtime
> to
> >> handle letting various web frameworks (including Enyo 2) run on Open
> webOS
> >> devices, handling any adaptation from our built-in APIs to more standard
> >> methods.
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Its certainly up for debate, while webOS still is out there it is not
> >> > shipping on any devices, nor has it for a couple of years.
> >> >
> >> > However, we are seeing an interesting trend towards web operating
> >> > systems: chrome, windows, firefox, and tizen. This puts webOS in some
> >> > good company and given the trend I could see interest piquing again
> >> > this year if consumers have an easy way to get said bits onto an
> >> > unlocked device.
> >> >
> >> > Markus is there a way to install webOS on Android devices yet? Maybe
> >> > this is something we can help get going.
> >> >
> >> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> > > WebOS still gets distributed unlike Symbian.
> >> > >
> >> > > -Steve
> >> > >
> >> > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Leutwyler, Markus
> >> > > <ma...@hp.com>wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > >> Should we put Open webOS/webOS back to the Core Platforms since
> >> > Cordova's
> >> > >> importance is publicly documented?
> >> > >>
> >> > >> See
> >> > >>
> >> >
> >>
> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Markus
> >> > >>
> >> > >> -----Original Message-----
> >> > >> From: Filip Maj [mailto:fil@adobe.com]
> >> > >> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 22:44
> >> > >> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
> >> > >> Subject: Review of Core Platforms
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:
> >> > >>
> >> > >> ----
> >> > >>
> >> > >> Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova
> >> > project.
> >> > >>
> >> > >> * iOS
> >> > >> * Android
> >> > >> * BlackBerr

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Filip Maj <fi...@adobe.com>.

>Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
>going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
>is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
>expect the Cordova platform to maintain.
>
>Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
>circulation, providing:
>
>- A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
>- Standard set of low level CLI tools
>- Embeddable (if possible)
>- InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
>- [what else?]

A native plugin API?

Re: Review of Core Platforms

Posted by Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io>.

Think its still good to make this distinction even though our scope is
going to drastically reduce (in a sense). The benefit of these labels
is to indicate how much involvement developers using Cordova can
expect the Cordova platform to maintain.

Core platforms target an operating system, with devices in
circulation, providing:

- A standard low level bridge API and utilities.
- Standard set of low level CLI tools
- Embeddable (if possible)
- InAppBrowser and other browser-ish shims like alerts, etc.
- [what else?]

(I am also assuming that even though core plugins will be removed from
platforms we are going to continue maintaining those basic device
APIs.)



On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 8:45 PM, Dave Johnson <da...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If we are moving towards a world where all that a platform has to do is
> implement the bridge / hack / ffi / whatever you want to call the message
> passing from webview to native such that a developer can compose apps from
> available plugins, then is there any need for distinction between core or
> otherwise platforms? If people want to contribute, maintain and test the
> bridge code for a platform does that not make it core?
>
> On Friday, January 4, 2013, Ben Combee wrote:
>
>> Yeah, there is a bit of work happening in Open webOS right now... We've got
>> ports to the Galaxy Nexus and Nexus 7 hardware that are actively being
>> worked on by the community, and we've also got some x86 hardware working
>> with the webOS runtime environment being hosted on Ubuntu.... and then
>> there's the stuff that we've not announced yet. :)
>>
>> I expect there will be a bit of work around Cordova and webOS this year.
>> We just published an article on using Enyo 2 with Cordova for webOS apps (
>>
>> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
>> ),
>> and as we evolve Open webOS, we're picking Cordova as our main runtime to
>> handle letting various web frameworks (including Enyo 2) run on Open webOS
>> devices, handling any adaptation from our built-in APIs to more standard
>> methods.
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 3:03 PM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote:
>>
>> > Its certainly up for debate, while webOS still is out there it is not
>> > shipping on any devices, nor has it for a couple of years.
>> >
>> > However, we are seeing an interesting trend towards web operating
>> > systems: chrome, windows, firefox, and tizen. This puts webOS in some
>> > good company and given the trend I could see interest piquing again
>> > this year if consumers have an easy way to get said bits onto an
>> > unlocked device.
>> >
>> > Markus is there a way to install webOS on Android devices yet? Maybe
>> > this is something we can help get going.
>> >
>> > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Steven Gill <st...@gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> > > WebOS still gets distributed unlike Symbian.
>> > >
>> > > -Steve
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 6:57 AM, Leutwyler, Markus
>> > > <ma...@hp.com>wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Should we put Open webOS/webOS back to the Core Platforms since
>> > Cordova's
>> > >> importance is publicly documented?
>> > >>
>> > >> See
>> > >>
>> >
>> http://blog.openwebosproject.org/post/39278618299/javascript-apps-for-open-webos-with-enyo-and-cordova
>> > >>
>> > >> Markus
>> > >>
>> > >> -----Original Message-----
>> > >> From: Filip Maj [mailto:fil@adobe.com]
>> > >> Sent: Donnerstag, 3. Januar 2013 22:44
>> > >> To: dev@cordova.apache.org
>> > >> Subject: Review of Core Platforms
>> > >>
>> > >> Our CorePlatforms wiki article [1] has this:
>> > >>
>> > >> ----
>> > >>
>> > >> Core: These are the main platforms supported by the Apache Cordova
>> > project.
>> > >>
>> > >> * iOS
>> > >> * Android
>> > >> * BlackBerry
>> > >> * Windows Phone
>> > >> * Bada
>> > >>
>> > >> Sunset: These are platforms considered to be on their way out of
>> general
>> > >> consumer availability. We offer code, but not distribution of these
>> > >> platforms.
>> > >>
>> > >> * Symbian
>> > >> * webOS
>> > >>
>> > >> Sunrise: These are new platforms coming to Apache Cordova with some
>> > >> development under way.
>> > >>
>> > >> * Tizen
>> > >> * Qt
>> > >>
>> > >> Horizon: These are platforms that we hope to see supported by Apache
>> > >> Cordova in the future!
>> > >>
>> > >> * B2G
>> > >>
>> > >> ----
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> > >> Some propositions + questions, all up for debate of course:
>> > >>
>> > >> - I'm not sure about Bada. Last I checked Bada's passing % of
>> > mobile-spec
>> > >> is fairly weak (some features are just not doable; correct me if I'm
>> > >> wrong). I would like to propose that a platform is eligible for "Core"
>> > if
>> > >> they have >90% passing rate on mobile-spec. I would vote to move it
>> > into a
>> > >> new "Marginal" category, along with, say, cordova-mac or cordova-qt.
>> > Also,
>> > >> Bada-wac, how does this fit in?
>> > >> - Where does the ubuntu phone fit into this?
>> > >> - I would suggest we schedule removal of the BlackBerry 7 (java) and
>> > >> Playbook (Air) implementations, and have our BlackBerry implementation
>> > be
>> > >> BB10 only moving forward.
>> > >> - The "Windows Phone" category above covers both 7 and 8? What about
>> > >> Windows 8?
>> > >>
>> > >> [1] http://wiki.apache.org/cordova/PlatformSupport
>> > >>
>> > >>
>> >
>>