Talk:EquinoxCompatibility
From APIDesign
(→Richard S. Hall said ...) |
(Comment provided by Dewi - via ArticleComments extension) |
||
| (2 intermediate revisions not shown.) | |||
| 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> | ||
| + | == 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> | ||
| + | == 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> | ||
Current revision
Comments on EquinoxCompatibility <comments />
Contents |
Richard S. Hall said ...
I guess you are right (although there is always way to provide AlternativeBehaviors), 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.
--JaroslavTulach 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Richard S. Hall said ...
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)
Prakrathi said ...
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)
Dewi said ...
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)
Follow
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)