Talk:EquinoxCompatibility
From APIDesign
(Difference between revisions)
(→Richard S. Hall said ...) |
(Comment provided by Richard S. Hall - via ArticleComments extension) |
||
| 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> | ||
Revision as of 18:10, 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)
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)
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)