felix-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Richard S. Hall" <he...@ungoverned.org>
Subject Re: Handling of provisional OSGi API
Date Fri, 17 Sep 2010 19:11:04 GMT
  On 9/17/10 11:36, Marcel Offermans wrote:
> On 17 Sep 2010, at 18:35 , Richard S. Hall wrote:
>
>>  From my point of view, approach (1) might not be awesome, but it results in a simpler
process than (2). So, I'd recommend (1). If the majority prefers (2), then we can do that
(although I think we'll have to run the decision by the board first).
> I prefer (1) too.
>
> I could see us combine (1) with (2), releasing implementations with both our own APIs
which gives us the freedom to experiment with a new API whilst still "supporting what's provided
by public releases of draft specs.

However, this doesn't avoid the IP grey of releasing "unofficial" APIs 
in our "official" releases. Effectively, option (2) is a hybrid 
approach, since we couldn't make modifications in the provisional API 
unless it were available in a public spec snapshot, so any modifications 
would have to be done in felix package namespace. Which sort of makes 
(2) the worst of both worlds.

-> richard

> In the end, we are an open source project, so we should stick to what's available out
in the open.
>
> Greetings, Marcel
>

Mime
View raw message