[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: Re: [equinox-dev] Generalized OSGi transformations
- From: "Alex Blewitt" <alex.blewitt@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:59:17 +0000
- Delivered-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=F5a+/7et9nPNExOC0nfOGBqa43/W4NBEHSpklrCI6qN2WAxYpQVYC0WiHDlPdElagfbZuky7nuWXFAKwxorVEkzmNO/BzqUwIJzWYA1IDeobcZSOhK5sc0afpKHLTEgTYN2Y8WFF3/l6D2yer7pC4E8sR61c4iUYt4NXL6el/wg=
On 15/11/06, Pascal Rapicault <Pascal_Rapicault@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If you read Kim's answer this is what she says: it is a "100% optional hook
on top of the equinox default adapter."
which means that nothing will be added in the framework, like it is the case
for the AspectJ work.
What it actually says is:
"What I'm thinking of is a 100% optional hook ..."
I was agreeing that this is a good direction, but there are other
possibilities if this doesn't pan out :-)
I do read e-mails, you know ...