Oscar was driven by the features I was interested in and what users
complained about, it seemed to work okay.
I am not saying that we are not interested in spec compliance, since I
think we would all like this. My point is that we have limited
resources, so if we have to choose between working on something that no
one wants but is spec complaint or something that people want but is not
necessarily related to the spec, then we will probably choose the
latter...especially since this is a volunteer effort.
However, we fully encourage and support any volunteers that wish to work
on spec compliance issues. :-)
-> richard
BJ Hargrave wrote:
Well the question is: do you describe Felix as an OSGi framework
implementation or a framework which implement portions of the OSGi
framework specification?
I desperately hope it is the former. Otherwise it is like Tomcat picking
and chosing what parts of servlet or JSP it implements.
BJ Hargrave
Senior Technical Staff Member, IBM
OSGi Fellow and CTO of the OSGi Alliance
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Office: +1 407 849 9117 Mobile: +1 386 848 3788
Peter Kriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 2005-09-30 04:18:02 PM:
For the Framework, the following is optional
Security
Require-Bundle
Fragments
The question is how important it is for Felix to be compliant. As an
OSGi official I would say: Paramount! However, from I guess that looks
slightly more subtle from Richard's perspective. :-)
Kind regards,
Peter Kriens
DD> What is exactly mandatory in R4 ? the Core ?
DD> So "ConditionalPermissionAdmin" chapter is required ?
DD> Didier
