On 11/2/06, Peter Kriens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
+1 on the suggested new stuff.
+1 on the suggested new stuff.
During initial discussion on the CPEG call the idea was brought up to
create an extension model for the filter. This would allow third
parties to add operators. I am not fond of this idea because it makes
the presence of operators very fuzzy, it is hard to get popular
operators when the presence of the operator depends on other installed
bundles.
-1 on "operator extensions" (I can't shake the ghosts from C++ operator overloading days), but more -0 for "function extensions" especially if that is combined with some type of "namespace" so that the platform can deny deployment if extension is not installed.
Cheers
Niclas
_______________________________________________ OSGi Developer Mail List osgi-dev@bundles.osgi.org http://bundles.osgi.org/mailman/listinfo/osgi-dev
