Beside Niclas points there are some additional facts related to OPS4J: * it's open participation meaning that virtually anybody can contribute. No need for patches. * release process. we tend to release often.
Alin On Jan 13, 2008 1:05 PM, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Thursday 10 January 2008 23:09, Richard S. Hall wrote: > > There is no attempt by any of our sub-projects to specifically tie > > themselves to the Felix framework as far as I am aware. I think we want > > all of our work to be interoperable where possible, so I think this is a > > non-issue. > > Yes, that is a good goal and I salute that. In general, we are more often than > not met with positive comments when trying to resolve cross-platform issues. > > But, I was thinking more "mentality-wise". People who use KF, first go and > check the KF's set of bundles, the Equinox-based folks will search the > Eclipse site first... and so on. > Why is that? Because the KF developed bundles are tested on KF only, the > Eclipse stuff is practically only tested on Equinox and so forth. This sends > the signal that it is a "safer bet" to choose from within the same community. > It's all in our heads! > > At OPS4J we *try* to ensure that everything gets tested on all the frameworks > we claim to support. And with Pax Runner, we try to force all the frameworks > into a configuration that is as close to each other as possible... > > End of the day, I think we want to remain "un-associated" with a framework, > and a strong cross-framework interoperability focus. I think it will benefit > us all. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > > I live here; http://tinyurl.com/2qq9er > I work here; http://tinyurl.com/2ymelc > I relax here; http://tinyurl.com/2cgsug >
