Since we are indeed looking at creating our own install, we should probably start this discussion now.
Just to clarify what exactly it is that we want to do: Gears provides a ton of useful pieces for creating both offline applications, and speeding-up online application. As discussed elsewhere ( http://tinyurl.com/45hugy ) we feel that an UltraLite gear is too compelling to ignore. Since it would appear that there are no current plans to allow other databases ( http://tinyurl.com/3sye9z , http://tinyurl.com/3vqehe ), and there are no concrete plans for a plug-in architectures ( http://tinyurl.com/46ugwh ), the best way seems to create our own new install of Gears that contains the additional UltraLite Gear. And, as you requested, we would like to work with you to make sure the installs "don’t clobber each other in the wild". So as a starting point for discussion, from your perspective, what things will we need to change to ensure they can co-exist? On Aug 25, 4:37 pm, "Chris Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Are these concerns simply referring to someone hosting a Google-built > > installer of the Google-built release of Gears, > > Yes, I was referring to this. > > > or are you suggesting that there may be legal concerns with another > > specific vendor hosting their own installer for their own version of > > the Gears code-base? > > This seems perfectly legal. Anybody that wants to attempt this should > work with us to make sure the two versions don't clobber each other in > the wild. > > On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:23 PM, EricFarrar > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > I was intrigued by a post on the Gears Users group last week about a > > user who wanted to host the Gears installer on their own site. (http:// > > tinyurl.com/6k6cw2) You had suggested there may be some legal concerns > > with doing this. Are these concerns simply referring to someone > > hosting a Google-built installer of the Google-built release of Gears, > > or are you suggesting that there may be legal concerns with another > > specific vendor hosting their own installer for their own version of > > the Gears code-base? Thanks. > > > - Eric > > > On Aug 12, 2:01 pm, EricFarrar<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Thanks Chris, > > >> I am looking at revisiting some prototyping work I did a year ago. You > >> may recall I made a version of Gears that replaced the SQLite store > >> with an UltraLite store to be able to use its built-in change-tracking > >> and synchronization > >> (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZbHfNVSsLEandhttp://www.youtube.com/w...). > >> Now that > >> UltraLite supports synchronization with MySQL, I am looking at > >> revisiting this. I had talked to you, Aaron Boodman, and Scott Hess > >> (http://groups.google.com/group/gears-eng/browse_thread/thread/ > >> 21072eeb91d90c32/5d039c6b92f8863c?lnk=gst&q=Eric > >> +Farrar#5d039c6b92f8863c) about 10 months ago about the idea of > >> allowing different databases inside of Gears, and at that time you > >> said that you had no plans in that direction. > > >> I think that the case for a version with UltraLite is too compelling > >> to ignore, so I am exploring options to be able to do this. The most > >> obvious one seems to take thestablereleases, and make and distribute > >> an enhanced version for those who want it. But in order to do this, I > >> would need a place to be able to get at these 'stablereleases'. > >> Hence, my original question :) > > >> - Eric > > >> On Aug 11, 5:04 pm, "Chris Prince" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> > That's correct, the svn tree has a single copy of the trunk. > > >> > Technically, there aren'tstablereleases of the Gears codebase. In > >> > reality, it's like this: > > >> > When Google (a specific vendor) does a release of the Gears (the > >> > open-source codebase), it starts with a baseline change, then pulls > >> > additional changes to reach a release it's happy with. So there isn't > >> > any single revision the Google builds are created from. > > >> > Out of curiosity, what did you want to do? Perhaps we can find out > >> > what baseline revision corresponds to a particular version you're > >> > interested in? > > >> > --Chris
