I completely agree - and I hope that we soon have a VLT release as this is
currently blocking if we go the VLT way.
Carsten
2013/7/25 Stefan Egli e...@adobe.com
Hi,
On 7/24/13 11:42 PM, Justin Edelson jus...@justinedelson.com wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Robert Munteanu rob...@lmn.ro wrote:
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.
Seems still to be a hot topic - VLT vs Resource-based. And I think we
should soon get to a decision on this. I think the decision which one to
choose is not only related to how well it fits into the IDE, but also
related to the impact on the overall picture. Especially given that there
is quite some existing packaging ecosystem around, as Justin mentioned. So
IMHO if the tooling chooses to go another direction than VLT, that either
means that the packaging ecosystem should switch as well - or it ends up
not being used by many people.
For the short term I dont see a problem having the possibility to play
with both - but I think we are in some sort of agreement that in the end
result there should only be one way.
Cheers,
Stefan
--
Carsten Ziegeler
cziege...@apache.org
