> The frameworks in RB are closed and bugs are sometimes allowed to
> persist for fairly long times.
> If they were open then it would not be an issue as a developer
> could submit a bug report and a fix and fix it for themselves and
> move on.
> But they can't so bug fixing needs to take a higher priority than
> it might for a tool like the PowerPlant frameworks.
Whilst the RB frameworks are (AFAIK) largely written in C++, it would
still be very useful to have access to them.
Access to framework source is the kind of thing that WOULD prompt me
to pay for Developer membership.
I suspect that the overhead of having to publish the frameworks and
build instructions would pay off for RS VERY quickly in terms of
contributed patches, especially if it was filtered by being part of a
developer program (nothing stops them directly offering free
developer program membership to selected community members, before
someone starts bleating about cost barriers).
Hmm, OK, so that's prompted me to start lobbying them
http://www.realsoftware.com/feedback/viewreport.php?reportid=hmhjjnxn
Opening the RB IDE would be a good first step ... assuming it's built
in the latest version of RB.
--
Keith Hutchison
http://balance-infosystems.com http://realopen.org
http://www.kasamba.com/Keith-Hutchison
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
