[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [equinox-dev] Extension registry evolution
- From: "Boris Bokowski" <bokowski@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2008 14:10:48 -0400
- Delivered-to: email@example.com
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition :references; b=F97jqUIqb8d6UJMuyqts/nBkUexsC1Mk6W6DT5XCUqwp3V2+kuRnkcfyyFXko3fc+B j9CW0SkLXwbbFzhqHj/M7cZ82EHFNOea221F32crE5+dWUVUq9XWPNZ2a4wpyWUaSoNB 8L6LQmsCuS3Wk/WyaJaSjO0pZ+UAqdbJaLDNg=
On Fri, Sep 26, 2008 at 11:32 AM, Mark Rogalski <rogalski@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Not to throw a fly in the ointment, but some of the designs being discussed
> would not work on CDC/Foundation 1.1.
Mark, what are you referring to? Being able to use annotations in
client code, for use with dependency injection frameworks like Guice,
or were you making a more general comment?
I agree that the platform itself should continue to target CDC
Foundation 1.1, but at the same time, we should make it possible for
clients to exploit the functionality available in later VMs.