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
In general I think we can move the stuff to trunk as long as it doesn't
break the build for everyone, even if the stuff is in flux and might be
completely changed over time. We ahve consensus that we want to do this in
the Sling project and having it in trunk gives it more visibility and the
+1
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
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
Given the discussions, I've moved the codebase from the whiteboard to
tooling/ide. I've created a Sling job at
https://builds.apache.org/view/S-Z/view/Sling/job/sling-ide-1.6/ and
also applied exclusions for tooling/ide when building the
sling-trunk-{1.6,1.7} jobs.
The tooling/ide reactor is not
Hi,
The 'Sling IDE tools' ( née Slingclipse ) have been restructured ( see
[1] ) and are now ready to get more attention from a development point
of view.
I'd like to propose moving them from Antonio's whiteboard [2] to the
contrib directory, at contrib/ide . Since they are a bit different
from
+1
On Jul 24, 2013, at 3:53 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
Hi,
The 'Sling IDE tools' ( née Slingclipse ) have been restructured ( see
[1] ) and are now ready to get more attention from a development point
of view.
I'd like to propose moving them from Antonio's whiteboard [2] to the
contrib
Hi
I think we should put them in their own top level folder -- e.g. ide ?
or even create a top level tooling (or so) folder and put the ide and
maven stuff in there ?
I would not put them into contrib because that is just bundles with a
different release policy.
Regards
Felix
Am 24.07.2013
+1 for tooling
2013/7/24 Felix Meschberger fmesc...@adobe.com
Hi
I think we should put them in their own top level folder -- e.g. ide ?
or even create a top level tooling (or so) folder and put the ide and
maven stuff in there ?
I would not put them into contrib because that is just
+1, also, for tooling.
Ian
On 24 July 2013 15:11, Carsten Ziegeler cziege...@apache.org wrote:
+1 for tooling
2013/7/24 Felix Meschberger fmesc...@adobe.com
Hi
I think we should put them in their own top level folder -- e.g. ide ?
or even create a top level tooling (or so) folder
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 ?...
+1
-Bertrand
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
+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
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
just taking a stab here ,
would it be impossible to have an API that is agnostic of VLT vs resource based?
regards
antonio
On Jul 24, 2013, at 7:54 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Justin Edelson
jus...@justinedelson.com wrote:
+1 to tooling and moving Maven
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Antonio Sanso asa...@adobe.com 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 +
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
antonio
On Jul 24, 2013, at 10:23 PM, Robert Munteanu wrote:
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Antonio Sanso asa...@adobe.com wrote:
just
On Thu, Jul 25, 2013 at 12:12 AM, Antonio Sanso asa...@adobe.com 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
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
19 matches
Mail list logo
