Mark Phippard wrote:
> The initial very rough draft for the proposal has been committed to the
> repository. You can view it online at:
>
> http://subclipse.tigris.org/proposal/index.html
>
> If you would like to contribute some edits you can check this out into
> Eclipse from this URL:
>
> http://subclipse.tigris.org/svn/subclipse/trunk/www/proposal
>
> It is in our repository as a Simple Eclipse Project, currently with just
> the single HTML file.
>
The proposal focus a lot on JavaHL versus JavaSVN. Too much if you ask me. Both have their
pros and cons.
As a provider of headless Eclipse plugins, I care a lot about being able to create platform
agnostic distributions (I expect that to be common for most Java shops that doesn't use
SWT). For us, using JavaHL is really problematic since it effectively removes all
distribution advantages of using Java.
Doing commercial stuff, I'd avoid JavaSVN due to it's license. I might even avoid it doing
Open Source since I don't want to contaminate my distributions.
Neither has an EPL license and hence, neither can be submitted to Eclipse (not at present
anyway).
You already conclude that "One of the main problems with CVS that Subversion sought to
address was the lack of an official API". OK, so take the full consequences of that
statement. You now submit something to the most commonly used Java based IDE. What would be
more natural then to propose an EPL licensed SVN Java API? If TMate wants to relicense their
stuff, perfect! If not, how hard can it be to do clean room implementation of a new official
API using pure Java?
IMO, the proposal should have a brief mention of JavaHL and JavaSVN as interim solutions
until a EPL based pure Java API is ready.
Kind Regards,
Thomas Hallgren
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subclipse.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subclipse.tigris.org
Received on Thu Jul 6 09:57:55 2006