I like that approach best. Gives us flexibility for the discovery bits moving forward will maintaining the the work put in thus far for config.xml
On 10/11/12 10:13 AM, "Jesse" <purplecabb...@gmail.com> wrote: >Can use both ... .json for npm-like package discovery and .xml for >install-time configuration. > >On the wp7 pluginstall, I liked the xml format because I essentially >just defined an xml fragment that gets appended to the output project >file ( also an xml file ) > > > > >On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:02 AM, Anis KADRI <anis.ka...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I think we should stick to it for now. I am totally in favor of using >>JSON >> in the future but right now I would like to see more plugins use this >>XML >> format. >> >> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Brian LeRoux <b...@brian.io> wrote: >> >>> ya the past is irrelevant. since we're moving to npm for the pkg mgmt >>>we >>> should probably move to an extension of package.json >>> >>> instead of clobbering andrew's work (and creating work for him) we >>>should >>> have a light module in-between that is responsible for marshaling >>>between >>> the formats. >>> >>> this stuff is decidedly not hard but certainly not interesting or fun. >>> >>> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Filip Maj <f...@adobe.com> wrote: >>> >>> > Probably no reason other than "because Andrew wrote it and that's >>>what he >>> > chose" >>> > >>> > On 10/11/12 3:20 AM, "Mike Reinstein" <reinstein.m...@gmail.com> >>>wrote: >>> > >>> > >If this is an old discussion/argument I'm sorry for re-hashing >>>this. I'm >>> > >wondering why express the plugin manifest in xml, when its managed >>>in >>> > >node/javascript which handles json natively. There doesn't seem to >>>be >>> any >>> > >significant nesting or complex XML within the doc thus far. >>>Intentional >>> > >design decision? Any info on this would be enlightening and helpful. >>> > > >>> > >thanks, >>> > > >>> > >-Mike >>> > >>> > >>> > > > >-- >@purplecabbage >risingj.com
