Talk:EquinoxCompatibility
From APIDesign
(Difference between revisions)
(Comment provided by shoes online - via ArticleComments extension) |
(Comment provided by Richard S. Hall - via ArticleComments extension) |
||
| 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> | ||
Revision as of 01:50, 14 July 2010
Comments on EquinoxCompatibility <comments />
shoes online said ...
Richard S. Hall said ...
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)
Follow
great.....
--shoes online 16:41, 13 July 2010 (CEST)