Hi Gregg,

This is good strategy to make it work on a separate build system excluding it.

BR, Uze Choi

From: Gregg Reynolds [mailto:d...@mobileink.com] 
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2018 4:34 AM
To: 최우제(Uze Choi)
Cc: iotivity-dev
Subject: Re: [dev] API proposal for better userability in IoTivity Lite.

 

 

On Fri, Apr 6, 2018, 3:01 AM 최우제 (Uze Choi) <uzc...@samsung.com> wrote:

Sorry for late response due to mail system filtering. I didn’t ware of it.

 

I think open source project need to have two most important quality factors 
which are extensibility for more usage and maintainability.

Of course some project could be the optimization is most important.

It looks important that we keep the good balance considering various factors.

I think no one change for other request is not way to move on where open source 
goes.

If my change proposal is against current concept or big shift from current 
architecture, I get it. But this is not.

I could live with either of:

 

* a separate project, call it iotivity-litemt

* a build system to allows devs to easily pick what they want without pulling 
in unwanted stuff.  Nothing wrong with putting the Mt stuff in the master code, 
as long as I have a build target that excludes it.

 

G

_______________________________________________
iotivity-dev mailing list
iotivity-dev@lists.iotivity.org
https://lists.iotivity.org/mailman/listinfo/iotivity-dev

Reply via email to