Custom Libraries

Posted on
  • Not sure if this has been suggested before, but I think it would be useful to have custom libraries. Say, two different apps need to draw graphs. We could give every app separate code to draw the graphs, but it would be more efficient to create a graphing library and then have both apps use that library. Then, it's described in each app's .info file that it requires that library (e.g. requires: ["graphing"]), so that when the app is downloaded it can also download the libraries it needs.

  • Yes - this already happens. You have a few options:

    • Libraries that are on - for instance the graph library at get automatically pulled in
    • Libraries in­ree/master/modules get pulled in by the app loader and are included into the app's JavaScript
    • Or other apps can provide functionality as a module as part of the app - like notifications. Apps can then request notifications are installed with "dependencies": {"notify":"type"},.

    The nice bit about the third option is an app can request notifications, but you have a choice about which app you install that provides notifications (so you can for instance have ones that look a bit different)

  • Ok, thanks for the info!

  • Nice, "dependencies": {....} slipped by while I had some low Espruino activity times.

  • I was thinking about adding simple Settings library, just something like
    require('Settings').get('app.settings.js­on', '', 'default'); and
    require('Settings').set('app.settings.js­on', '', 'value');

    Probably wouldn't be much work to implement, but we could get rid of (almost?) all of the defaults-handling boilerplate in apps.

    • Does this seem like a good idea, or would it add too much overhead for apps? (I think it would be ok, as they are already loading+parsing a settings file anyway)
    • Having a separate library just for two functions feels a bit cluttery, maybe a "Core/Standard/Basic/Bikeshed" library with getSetting/setSetting would be better? (I can't really think of similar functions right now, but going through all apps to change it later would be a shame.)
  • It could be a good idea, yes. Something in the modules folder will get packaged in with each app and shouldn't take a bunch of extra memory. I think the issue with a 'core' library is stuff always gets added to it, and then to use two functions you end up having to pull in something with another 20 you don't care about :)

    I'd argue that maybe we should enforce settings.json' so just require('Settings').get('app', '', 'default') might be better, and it'd mean less chance of bugs?

    If we find it's something that every device is using, it could always be built into Bangle.js at a later date I guess?

  • the issue with a 'core' library is stuff always gets added to it

    Good point, Settings it is then.

    enforce settings.json so just require('Settings').get('app', '', 'default') might be better

    You're right, I think I mostly avoided it because I couldn't think of a nice way to ask for global settings from settings.json (passing in an empty first argument seems error-prone). But we can pass in Bangle (the object) and check for that. (unless that would lead to some issue like huge RAM usage I didn't think of?)

  • Ahh - good point. I didn't think about the global settings. Maybe just leave it blank for that?

  • Post a reply
    • Bold
    • Italics
    • Link
    • Image
    • List
    • Quote
    • code
    • Preview

Custom Libraries

Posted by Avatar for qucchia0 @qucchia0