Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]

Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?

From: Mike Milinkovich <mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 23 Apr 2014 16:24:01 -0400
Delivered-to: iot-wg@xxxxxxxxxxx
List-archive: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/iot-wg>
List-help: <mailto:iot-wg-request@eclipse.org?subject=help>
List-subscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/iot-wg>, <mailto:iot-wg-request@eclipse.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/options/iot-wg>, <mailto:iot-wg-request@eclipse.org?subject=unsubscribe>
Organization: Eclipse Foundation
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0

On 23/04/2014 4:06 PM, Doug Schaefer wrote:

What do we mean by "optimised"? Couldn't we not go through and do thatoptimization to address the size of Equinox? Or are there bigarchitectural differences that makes it harder to do with Equinox?

I don't understand why anyone cares? Concierge was specifically designedto be a lightweight OSGi container for embedded applications. Equinoxhas never been successful there. If some Eclipse projects want to tryout Concierge, that is just great thank you very much.


--
Mike Milinkovich
mike.milinkovich@xxxxxxxxxxx
+1.613.220.3223 (mobile)

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
  - From: Doug Schaefer

References:
- [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
  - From: Pascal Rapicault
- Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
  - From: Thomas Eichstädt-Engelen
- Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
  - From: Doug Schaefer

Prev by Date: Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
Next by Date: Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
Previous by thread: Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
Next by thread: Re: [iot-wg] Why use concierge?
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Breadcrumbs