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
