On 01/11/2007, Niclas Hedhman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi, > I was wondering what the resolution would be if the specification says one > thing and the commonly distributed sources/jars used by framework > implementations isn't according to the spec.
a lot depends on the exact scenario... for example if it was in an obscure area that hardly anyone used then it would be easier to update all the frameworks to conform with the spec (once the spec has been tightened) conversely, if all the frameworks had decided to do it a particular way and the spec was vague on this point then I could foresee the spec being updated in line with the agreed convention (unless of course it was an implementation detail - like a lot of JVMs do things the same way, but the spec is still 'open' wrt. certain mechanisms) imho, this isn't something you could (or should) cast in stone - what's wrong with evaluating each issue on its own merit? I guess I'm missing the benefit for declaring what is 'authoritative', since there will always be exceptions... also, I think the main cause of non-compatible frameworks getting out would be due to lack of TCK tests - so when areas of the spec are clarified TCK tests should be updated / added to. Note: This is a hypothetical case, if we (God forbid) end up in such > scenarion, I just want to know what is authorative, since such scenario > would > break compatibility. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ > OSGi Developer Mail List > [email protected] > http://www2.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev > -- Cheers, Stuart
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List [email protected] http://www2.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
