Hi Valentin, I like the 3rd option too. Having the webbundle url handler is an important part of the RFC 66 specification, since we already have it in contrib, it is great to have it moved like you decided.
I have one question below. On Tue, Jan 12, 2010 at 11:58 AM, Valentin Mahrwald <[email protected]> wrote: > My personal preference would be the third choice, keeping a minimum of > separation without unnecessary bundle. Also, I think the BundleConverter > interface is the more general one. However, that choice would mean the > webbundle handler bundle would have imports from application API. I didn't quite understand why the 3rd choice would require the web bundle handler bundle have imports from Application API. I think it would be the other way around. Lin
