You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
The registry https://github.com/aframevr/aframe-registry is not maintained anymore. Yet, it does provide an interesting perspective, namely to both track documented maintained components and provide an efficient way to integrate them, something very useful to other tools, e.g the https://github.com/aframevr/aframe-inspector . In fact IMHO community made and maintained components themselves, now that core works (being in 1.x), is the most important aspect of AFrame.
Maintaining the official AFrame registry itself was unfortunately not a sucess for multiple reasons. Among these reasons arguably centralization was a problem as it was demanding already busy maintainers to keep track of things that were, by definition, not the core of the project.
Consequently it could be interesting to revive the registry but from the lessons learned from this. I believe this would mean pursue the c-frame perspective, as in not being part of AFrame itself. That means that the c-frame registry would not be "the" canonical registry but rather the first one among possibly many. It could even follow a federated model but I would suggest only as a 2nd step, where each project maintains and make publicly available its registry.yml file.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The registry https://github.com/aframevr/aframe-registry is not maintained anymore. Yet, it does provide an interesting perspective, namely to both track documented maintained components and provide an efficient way to integrate them, something very useful to other tools, e.g the https://github.com/aframevr/aframe-inspector . In fact IMHO community made and maintained components themselves, now that core works (being in 1.x), is the most important aspect of AFrame.
Maintaining the official AFrame registry itself was unfortunately not a sucess for multiple reasons. Among these reasons arguably centralization was a problem as it was demanding already busy maintainers to keep track of things that were, by definition, not the core of the project.
Consequently it could be interesting to revive the registry but from the lessons learned from this. I believe this would mean pursue the c-frame perspective, as in not being part of AFrame itself. That means that the c-frame registry would not be "the" canonical registry but rather the first one among possibly many. It could even follow a federated model but I would suggest only as a 2nd step, where each project maintains and make publicly available its
registry.yml
file.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: