On 06:37 Wed 02 Jul , Hal Rosenstock wrote: > > Because exposing all the data structures, etc. is way more granular (all > the socalled opaque objects are no longer opaque) than a library API. > It's a totally different magnitude IMO.
This is what I said. Having "structured" API could lead to an issues similar to what we saw with libosmcomp. > > > This is related to what I wrote below about the OpenFabrics licensing > > > requirements. The idea is if GPL licensing were to be allowed (perhaps > > > only in some limited context), then there could be two different > > > packages: dual and GPL. In that way plugins would be more assured of > > > being compatible with each other and OpenSM. > > > > I would prefer to separate packages by its functionality and not due to > > licensing issues. > > Right, licensed based packages do put all related functionality in a > similar bucket (management) but is that the basis to make such a > decision ? Which decisions? I'm not following. Sasha _______________________________________________ general mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openfabrics.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/general To unsubscribe, please visit http://openib.org/mailman/listinfo/openib-general
