On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 1:19 PM Gregg Reynolds <d...@mobileink.com> wrote:
> > > On Wed, Apr 4, 2018, 3:53 AM 최우제 (Uze Choi) <uzc...@samsung.com> wrote: > >> Hi Christian, >> >> Even though this is not needed by all developer, this is also required. >> > Required by whom? > >> To satisfy this requirement, minimal code needs to be added. >> >> I don’t think it take lots of code. >> > It would set a bad precedent. Pretty soon other vendors would want to do > the same thing for their particular needs. > > What's wrong with creating a library to support this "requirement"? > I'll add that moving a vendor-specific solution into the kernel kills a competitive space. You want MT? Acme Corp. has a solution; so does Bravo Corp. They're optimized differently. Let the market decide which is better. Move Acme's solution into the official release and you kill that market. Please do not follow the path of Iotivity. Simple example : the Java API. That should never have been a part of core iotivity. I've got a completely different Java API in the works. A great many such apis are possible. Coronating just one as the official API is not so helpful, imho. Gregg
_______________________________________________ iotivity-dev mailing list iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev
