-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
iOS Project Layout #14
Comments
I like it. Again I'm all ears as well |
I would imagine this would get more feedback if you adumbrate the alternatives. Your "pros" list is using all relative comparison terms ("easier", "faster", etc...) but what your solution is being compared to might not be clear. |
@tonylukasavage good point, OP updated. |
Because its no longer clear, @Sophrinix was in favor of option 1 (option 2 was outlined in my update) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
As we continue our march in bringing Ti.Next to release we begin to consider the native side of the project layout. That is to say, how do we take the parts (App JS, module JS, native module code, hyperloop modules, HAL, and titanium) and compile them.
As it stands, we are ready to start implementing something here so we need to make some choices post-haste.
Approach number 1:
.bundle
for all assets and such. Other then that the Apps Xcode project would be un-touched by the CLI/Build tools (by default, we would later have a compatibility / easy mode that acts more like current Ti)build
folder, just platform directories.This approach has one drawback, but it might be a big one:
This approach has a few benefits to it:
Approach number 2 (How Ti works now):
.bundle
for all assets and such.This approach has a few drawbacks:
But it also has a few pros:
One final note: Approach 2 can be built on top of 1 as a plugin.
Going with plan 1 means we have an advanced mode to drop down to when needed, but does not rule out being able to do everything plan 2 can do.
Did I forget something? Disagree with the approach? all ears here :)
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: