Alfred wrote:
This discussion is not about the RBX virtual volume format itself,
it is about standardizing the version information so end users can
manage their plugins.
Yes, I did understand it was about the version info. But you were
complaining about open sourcing of certain tool(s). It then became
unclear. I also believe the discussion is kind of moot, since
William suggested to version the plugin name inside the vv.
It isn't a moot discussion since we are talking about managing
plugins from multiple vendors. For example, if Bjprn chooses to
continue with his current method and the rest of us use William's
suggestion, then what do we have--an uncoordinated mess. End users
will be frustrated by the lack of clarity.
In this context of versioning RBX plugins, closed proprietary
tools work against the flow since other vendors need to know they
can rely on a tool being there. What if one day Bjorn decides this
is it and pulls up the stakes, then we are all screwed if we are
depending on his proprietary tool.
This is a plugin management issue. I would like to see a common
solution that everyone can pony up to and be happy with.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode:
<http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/>
Search the archives of this list here:
<http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
|