Talk:EquinoxCompatibility - Revision history

94.23.238.222: Comment provided by Dewi - via ArticleComments extension

94.23.238.222 — Tue, 22 Oct 2013 00:44:49 GMT

Comment provided by Dewi - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 00:44, 22 October 2013
Line 27:		Line 27:

	--Prakrathi 08:29, 21 October 2013 (CEST)		--Prakrathi 08:29, 21 October 2013 (CEST)
		+	</div>
		+	== Dewi said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	Forcing users to get a pay tool to do what a different open soucre tool does is not a strategty that will win long term. We want people writing snazy code, and we want it in eclipse right? SWT designer is nice, my team purchased it. But it doesn't beat Matisse, and it's a glaring failure of Eclpse as a whole.Asking users to buy a book (even the Eclipse RCP book) doesn't seem like a good strategy either. It's not that the documentation isn't out there, it's that it seems to have been written bya bunch of fuedal lords, none of whom care to share their technology with each other and make a aactual real integrated tool and documentation set out of it.I have looked at Eclipse Riena, and I like lots of it, but once again, how does this technology mix and match with everything else? Not well it seems.
		+
		+	--Dewi 02:44, 22 October 2013 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>

188.143.232.12: Comment provided by Prakrathi - via ArticleComments extension

188.143.232.12 — Mon, 21 Oct 2013 06:29:01 GMT

Comment provided by Prakrathi - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 06:29, 21 October 2013
Line 20:		Line 20:

	--Richard S. Hall 20:10, 14 July 2010 (CEST)		--Richard S. Hall 20:10, 14 July 2010 (CEST)
		+	</div>
		+	== Prakrathi said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	That is completely unbalstendadre.I've been contemplating doing this as well, but was wondering how you approached those specific hurdles.I'm not a lawyer, but the OPC specs are published under the RCL (never heard of it) but it states under the RCL your changes, bug fixes, extensions, etc. must be made available to the community. I figure the term community ties the source and changes back to foundation members.If we do tackle this, I would hope to make it official (as Utgard is on the OPC website) but also be able to keep it open-source.Thank you for your feedback!
		+
		+	--Prakrathi 08:29, 21 October 2013 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>

75.40.235.43: Comment provided by Richard S. Hall - via ArticleComments extension

75.40.235.43 — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:10:40 GMT

Comment provided by Richard S. Hall - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:10, 14 July 2010
Line 14:		Line 14:

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
		+	== Richard S. Hall said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	Yeah, it was unfortunate that there was a similar issue in both. I've added a test case for this for Felix at least, but one should probably be added to the OSGi CT too.
		+
		+	--Richard S. Hall 20:10, 14 July 2010 (CEST)
		+	</div>

JaroslavTulach: /* Richard S. Hall said ... */

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:05:24 GMT

Richard S. Hall said ...

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:05, 14 July 2010
Line 11:		Line 11:
	</div>		</div>

-	I guess you are right, it is better to follow the spec (especially if the [[TCK]] is improved to cover the case). On the other hand, this is not true ''containerism'': the (mis)behavior was the same in [[Equinox]] 3.5 as well as in [[Felix]]. Otherwise I would find out I need to pass in ''null'' sooner.	+	I guess you are right (although there is always way to provide [[AlternativeBehavior]]s), it is better to follow the spec (especially if the [[TCK]] is improved to cover the case). On the other hand, this is not true ''containerism'': the (mis)behavior was the same in [[Equinox]] 3.5 as well as in [[Felix]]. Otherwise I would find out I need to pass in ''null'' sooner.

	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)		--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

JaroslavTulach at 18:03, 14 July 2010

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 18:03:16 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 18:03, 14 July 2010
Line 10:		Line 10:
	--Richard S. Hall 03:50, 14 July 2010 (CEST)		--Richard S. Hall 03:50, 14 July 2010 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>
		+
		+	I guess you are right, it is better to follow the spec (especially if the [[TCK]] is improved to cover the case). On the other hand, this is not true ''containerism'': the (mis)behavior was the same in [[Equinox]] 3.5 as well as in [[Felix]]. Otherwise I would find out I need to pass in ''null'' sooner.
		+
		+	--[[User:JaroslavTulach\|JaroslavTulach]] 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

JaroslavTulach at 17:54, 14 July 2010

JaroslavTulach — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 17:54:23 GMT

←Older revision		Revision as of 17:54, 14 July 2010
Line 3:		Line 3:
	----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude>		----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude>

-	~~== shoes online said ... ==~~
-
-	~~<div class='commentBlock'>~~
-	~~great.....~~
-
-	~~--[http://www.ebuyshoesstore.com shoes online] 16:41, 13 July 2010 (CEST)~~
-	~~</div>~~
	== Richard S. Hall said ... ==		== Richard S. Hall said ... ==

192.18.128.5: Comment provided by Richard S. Hall - via ArticleComments extension

192.18.128.5 — Wed, 14 Jul 2010 01:50:23 GMT

Comment provided by Richard S. Hall - via ArticleComments extension

←Older revision		Revision as of 01:50, 14 July 2010
Line 9:		Line 9:

	--[http://www.ebuyshoesstore.com shoes online] 16:41, 13 July 2010 (CEST)		--[http://www.ebuyshoesstore.com shoes online] 16:41, 13 July 2010 (CEST)
		+	</div>
		+	== Richard S. Hall said ... ==
		+
		+	<div class='commentBlock'>
		+	I'm not a believer in being backwards compatible with bugs, otherwise there'd be no end. The spec is the law of the land in the OSGi world, so that's what bundles should expect to get. If we weren't strict with that, then bundles would continue to depend on containerisms even after they were corrected.
		+
		+	--Richard S. Hall 03:50, 14 July 2010 (CEST)
	</div>		</div>

59.57.176.32: Comment provided by shoes online - via ArticleComments extension

59.57.176.32 — Tue, 13 Jul 2010 14:41:47 GMT

Comment provided by shoes online - via ArticleComments extension

New page

<noinclude>Comments on [[EquinoxCompatibility]]
<comments />
----- __NOEDITSECTION__</noinclude>

== shoes online said ... ==

<div class='commentBlock'>
great.....

--[http://www.ebuyshoesstore.com shoes online] 16:41, 13 July 2010 (CEST)
</div>