Talk:EquinoxCompatibility
From APIDesign
(Difference between revisions)
(→Richard S. Hall said ...) |
|||
| 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) | ||
Revision as of 18:05, 14 July 2010
Comments on EquinoxCompatibility <comments />
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)
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)