On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> wrote:
> sorry for misunderstanding but what I really meant is :
>
> would it be impossible to have ONLY one API that is agnostic of VLT vs 
> resource based?
>
> regards

If what you mean is having three bundles

* ide-api
* resource-impl
* vlt-impl

and then having the eclipse plugin work with only the ide-api bundle,
not knowing what the implementations are, then I think it is possible.

Robert

>
> antonio
>
> On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Antonio Sanso <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> just taking a stab here ,
>>> would it be impossible to have an API that is agnostic of VLT vs resource 
>>> based?
>>>
>>
>> From a technical point of view it's possible, and that's why I tried
>> to separate things into API + implementation.
>>
>> I think that there is a concern that from a support / development
>> effort point of view it makes no sense to support two APIs at the same
>> time. On the long term we should (probably) pick one.
>>
>> But we also need to see which of those has the better IDE embedding
>> story, or at least we'll find out how to drive VLT towards better IDE
>> embeddability.
>>
>> Robert
>>
>>> regards
>>>
>>> antonio
>>>
>>>
>>> On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Justin Edelson
>>>> <[email protected]> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> 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 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 5:15 PM, Bertrand Delacretaz
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 4:02 PM, Felix Meschberger <[email protected]>
>>>>>> 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
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sent from my (old) computer
>

Reply via email to