Mailing-List: contact callback-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of purplecabbage@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: 
 <CANpVHHxVZVTmhB-KNZyExRKx7COaT9fzbvd7h0Jz_nyEdoHMDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CAM-DUcOAGu6mY4h=MePGBfd_bRiZYxZngpAJmBkk-+GD1cPHwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC9C44A1.F9BD%fil@adobe.com>
	<CADVgkyN1O_3KDJ5Y5HAJEkExw+8daBHC90R717KZzVqBKMAjDw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANpVHHxVZVTmhB-KNZyExRKx7COaT9fzbvd7h0Jz_nyEdoHMDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 10:13:38 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAKP6k2t_Vbup_MV0BQZfAq5FF=XrpnKza90Z_Oj3U1Ej8PDDdQ@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: plugin format: why plugin.xml instead of plugin.json ?
From: Jesse <purplecabbage@gmail.com>
To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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.kadri@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 <fil@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.mike@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