[ide] VLT vs Resource-based (was: [ide] Moving the IDE tools to contrib)

[Stefan Egli <eg...@adobe.com>]

Hi,

On 7/24/13 11:42 PM, "Justin Edelson" <ju...@justinedelson.com> wrote:

>
>On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Robert Munteanu <ro...@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

Re: [ide] VLT vs Resource-based (was: [ide] Moving the IDE tools to contrib)

[Carsten Ziegeler <cz...@apache.org>]

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 <eg...@adobe.com>

> Hi,
>
> On 7/24/13 11:42 PM, "Justin Edelson" <ju...@justinedelson.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:54 PM, Robert Munteanu <ro...@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
cziegeler@apache.org