Hi Robert,
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Robert Munteanu <rob...@lmn.ro> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Justin Edelson > <jus...@justinedelson.com> wrote: > > +1 to tooling and moving Maven stuff there. > > -0 to moving IDE out of the whiteboard until we have a consensus on a > > serialization/transport form. > > > > My understanding is that the current IDE codebase is being used to > > prototype a serialization form and transport protocol and that we will > > eventually be trying to reach consensus on using that, vlt, or something > > else. > > I've waited to propose move out of whiteboard until we had a solid > module structure which can be used to evolve the IDE stuff into what > we want it to be. > > The serialization form is more or less a draft which I'm using until > FileVault is accepted into Jackrabbit. The transport protocol is based > on the Sling HTTP Get/Post servlets, which is a de facto standard for > Sling applications, at least for those not using FileVault. > > The point here is that I don't have vlt to work with _now_ and I can > evolve the Eclipse mechanisms ( UI , servers, modules, change > detection ) - which are not trivial - without waiting for vlt. And I > can gather feedback from people brave enough to try it without waiting > for vlt. > Can't you do all of that in a whiteboard or branch? > > Once we can use VLT, we'll see what fits best. I admit that I have an > inclination towards the resource-based API, but it's not my personal > decision to make. > I think to make an apples-to-apples comparison, the packaging format and installaion services will also need to be at least defined (better yet would be to have prototypes available). I thought that was the outcome of the prior thread we had on this subject. As I said at that point, the advantage of leveraging VLT is that the existing packaging tool ecosystem would not need to be recreated. > > Of course, I can put a hold on moving the codebase to trunk/tooling, > but that would not gain anything for now, since the codebase is in > flux anyway. > I guess I just don't see the driver to move anything. But I'm not going to veto such a move. Justin > > Instead, my suggestion is not to make any sort of releases, not even > technology previews, until we have consensus on the VLT vs > Resource-based implementation. > > WDYT? > > Robert > > > > > An alternative would be to create the tooling top-level directory and > then > > put the IDE in a branch. > > > > Justin > > > > > > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:42 AM, Robert Munteanu <rob...@lmn.ro> wrote: > > > >> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz > >> <bdelacre...@apache.org> wrote: > >> > On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Felix Meschberger < > fmesc...@adobe.com> > >> wrote: > >> >> ...create a top level "tooling" (or so) folder and put the "ide" and > >> "maven" stuff in there ?... > >> > >> I've created [0] to track this move and will do that later on today - > >> lots of stuff to adjust in the poms under maven. > >> > >> Robert > >> > >> [0]: https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/SLING-2978 > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Sent from my (old) computer > >> > > > > -- > Sent from my (old) computer >
