Talk:Netbinox

|| Because: why would you use Equinox when || Netbinox is fully compatible and much faster?

Because it would be work to replace Equinox everywhere it's used in my toolchain. Please consider sharing the love and donate to Equinox

Thanks,

Ron

--Ron Pomeroy 22:16, 20 December 2011 (CET)

Hello Ron, well the speedup is provided by six NetBeans modules and Equinox would need to take them, which is unlikely to happen. Anyway, I am supposed to visit OSGiCon in April 2012 talking about the fastest OSGi container on the planet, and I think your suggestion will be discussed there.

--JaroslavTulach 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Great blog you have here but I was wondering if you knew of any diisosscun boards that cover the same topics discussedhere? I'd really love to be a part of online community where I can get advice from other experienced people that share the same interest. If you have any recommendations, please let me know. Thank you!

--Jennifer 22:29, 25 June 2013 (CEST)

I don't know, aside from P2 bashing there is also P2 criitcs' bashing.If P2 hadn't entered 3.4 in M6 but in M3, there would be halve as much uproar. 472 open bugs is a joke when a product should be "feature complete" and is at RC1 status.And btw "number of closed bugs" or "percentage of closed bugs" must be the worst metric for software quality I've ever heard of. Write crappy software with trivial bugs and get kudos for closing these? Come on...The main criticism towards P2 is not that it's a good idea, it's not that it doesn't work - it's mainly that the update UI doesn't expose halve of the features, and the that the agent should not be used (That's from the wiki), and that P2 is too buggy to enter the game that late.

--Ashley 22:35, 25 June 2013 (CEST)

I fully approve with Patrick Schriner's conmemt.For me, the correct way to use p2 is to disable it. That's it.Using Bugs as "Todo's" is the best way to scare potential upcoming users (like me).By the way, searching for p2 issues will to to lots of frustrated users. It's unbelivable that a mature tool (which Eclipse was before p2) is getting worse this way...

--Buse 00:39, 26 June 2013 (CEST)

No, I didn't. Honestly, I haven't given it a try after I wrote the blog entry. I pay more attention to Enterprise OSGi with IBM WebSphere AS 8.5 these days and JBoss AS slppied under my radar. What version of JBoss AS do you work with?

--Thienanh 14:51, 26 June 2013 (CEST)

1 of the greate t tenuicqhes to ma added revenue i b ta ting y u pe sonal org nizat on.In 1907, James Murray Sp ngler, designed a a uum cleaner with luggage to seize du t and a ticle , maxim zing kitch n ar a st le and design.Y t anoth signifi ant edge for thes ecentr l ed architecture is th t there will be no ingle hoke tage inthe communit , as result making ertain th t ven inthe circumstance of c tastrophe, som iece of the community will gen rallyb u and rating.

--Neivan 16:43, 26 June 2013 (CEST)

I found this API to be conflicting with PHP 5, nlealmy the class soapclient which is already defined.The workaround I found was to disable the soap extension in the PHP ini file so not to go back to PHP 4. But still it's a nice addition and in most parts it seems to work ok.

--Novi 16:56, 26 June 2013 (CEST)

Well this would only work using a clean approach and resvree engineering. We made some initial tests and got some communication working just by sniffing the traffic between two OPC UA communication partners. So the main issue would be documenting the protocol from base up. Since wireshark has a dissector for OPC UA this should be a big help.So licensing could go under LGPL, GPL or any other OpenSource license.But, at least for the moment, we have no need for implementing OPC UA. That is why we did not continue after we checked out that it would be possible. And without some need, meaning someone to pay for the development or some project with that specific requirement, we have not a huge interest in putting our time on this topic.

--Tina 05:57, 21 October 2013 (CEST)