Re: [nebula-dev] CTableTree

[Tom Schindl <listom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

[...]

> #5 - why would they want to work under Nebula?  No offense meant here 
> either, but there is a cost to working under this umbrella and the 
> benefits don't seem especially well laid out... I'm really not sure what 
> they are even.  Overall, I've had a better experience with code at 
> Sourceforge and have reopened development of CDateTime there (where it 
> began) - I plan on reconnecting with Peter and seeing what I can 
> transfer over, but for my development SF is good and, most importantly, 
> widgets are fun again.

Having this dual life is IMHO a big problem. I have a customer and they 
have chosen CDateTime as their default DateTime-Widget from Nebula. I 
didn't know that you are working on it at another place.

Thank god I had created a facade our the Library not showing the 
underlying implementation.

This is more confusing than it helps people. I think you have to decided 
where development should take place.

What is needed to get you back and do development under the nebula-umbrella?

From your last mail on the problems I see:

- Java 1.4 restriction: Don't think this is set in stone. I'm all for
                        using Java 1.4 but if one wants he/she should be
                        able to switch to Java 5 (Keep in mind that OS-X
                        people can use Java 6 until the cocoa port is
                        ready!). Comments?

- JFace-Problem: Look how Gallery-Viewer solved this issue by using a
                 Optional Dependency. I even think that we should do the
                 same with GridViewer

I think you together with Peter choose *one* repository. The other dual 
life will fustrate too many people and might have IP impacts if Peter 
ports something from SF to Nebula (e.g. if the code is not from you but 
a patch you applied from someone else).

Tom