Remigiusz Modrzejewski <l...@maxnet.org.pl> wrote: >On Oct 10, 2012, at 14:28 , Mike Meyer wrote: >> Well, the lack of an in-binary API certainly isn't the reason there's >not an Eclipse plugin. The Eclipse license is incompatible with the >GPL, so any scm that's GPL'ed (*cough* git *cough*) isn't linked with >Eclipse, but probably uses a process API. > >But Fossil is not GPL. It would make perfect sense to link it wherever >you'd like. > >For Git, it seems that it's primary implementation is a bit too messy >for most big projects, so they simply reimplement it. Eclipse's >implementation is called JGit. And it does provide a reasonably stable >Java API, used by a few projects.
Yeah, the *reimplimented* git in order to avoid the language and license issues of using the git code directly. That pretty much kills the argument that having to invoke fossil as a command is to much work! >On the other hand, Fossil's implementation is (apart from the regular >forking) quite nice. I'd bet you a beer that once the JSON API is >finished (in my already outlined understanding), it will be used by >some useful projects. No bet, because I agree with you. Except that I consider using modern concurrency technics a plus, not a minus. -- Sent from my Android tablet with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my swyping. _______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
