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 brian.leroux@gmail.com
 designates 74.125.83.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Sender: brian.leroux@gmail.com
In-Reply-To: <CC9C44A1.F9BD%fil@adobe.com>
References: 
 <CAM-DUcOAGu6mY4h=MePGBfd_bRiZYxZngpAJmBkk-+GD1cPHwA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CC9C44A1.F9BD%fil@adobe.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2012 09:51:45 -0700
Message-ID: 
 <CADVgkyN1O_3KDJ5Y5HAJEkExw+8daBHC90R717KZzVqBKMAjDw@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: plugin format: why plugin.xml instead of plugin.json ?
From: Brian LeRoux <b@brian.io>
To: callback-dev@incubator.apache.org
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b343496f5fdec04cbcb62e5

--047d7b343496f5fdec04cbcb62e5
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1

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
>
>

--047d7b343496f5fdec04cbcb62e5--