Finding the right target, and being attacked...
109 views
Skip to first unread message
Sebastien Lambla
Oct 14, 2014, 6:47:02 PM10/14/14
to <aspinsiders-only@ndalists.com>, <net-http-abstractions@googlegroups.com>, aspinside...@ndalists.com, mig...@xamarin.com
Miguel was very harsh in characterising me in ways that are uncalled for.
The question I asked can be summed as the following: The owin spec talks about abstractions, and currently talks about .NET. I understand .NET is a trademark of MS rather than a technical spec, and in the spirit of being open about specifications being open (note how many Open I put in there), I tried to find another term, one that does not have vendor attachments.
It was suggested to use CLI. We use Task<T> and the TPL. I believe the TPL is not part of the CLI as far as a non-patent clause would be involved. When defining standards, we have two choices: be OSS all the way or have a non-discriminatory clause in there, or something else. But we need to have clear choices.
As Im currently editing those specs, I’m trying to find the right term. Mono closed the doors by having a knee jerk reaction, CLI is not appropriate, CLR is a Microsoft thing. What do we call it in the spec?
If no one cares let’s put it to rest and call it “that thing that managed Microsoft compilers produce and other platforms execute”. I don’t care.
Let’s stop the witch hunt. I still would really be grateful for something more constructive. Is anyone able to respond with a more mature attitude to that open question? Is TPL part of CLI? Is it CLR? Is it patent-encumbered? Should it matter for a standard? Those questions are valid, I’d like to hear where we stand as a group rather than being vilified as an individual, which is neither fair nor cool nor acceptable.
I hope it is all a very big misunderstanding from people I respect in this community. The alternative is unthinkable.
Sebastuein
The question I asked can be summed as the following: The owin spec talks about abstractions, and currently talks about .NET. I understand .NET is a trademark of MS rather than a technical spec, and in the spirit of being open about specifications being open (note how many Open I put in there), I tried to find another term, one that does not have vendor attachments.
It was suggested to use CLI. We use Task<T> and the TPL. I believe the TPL is not part of the CLI as far as a non-patent clause would be involved. When defining standards, we have two choices: be OSS all the way or have a non-discriminatory clause in there, or something else. But we need to have clear choices.
As Im currently editing those specs, I’m trying to find the right term. Mono closed the doors by having a knee jerk reaction, CLI is not appropriate, CLR is a Microsoft thing. What do we call it in the spec?
If no one cares let’s put it to rest and call it “that thing that managed Microsoft compilers produce and other platforms execute”. I don’t care.
Let’s stop the witch hunt. I still would really be grateful for something more constructive. Is anyone able to respond with a more mature attitude to that open question? Is TPL part of CLI? Is it CLR? Is it patent-encumbered? Should it matter for a standard? Those questions are valid, I’d like to hear where we stand as a group rather than being vilified as an individual, which is neither fair nor cool nor acceptable.
I hope it is all a very big misunderstanding from people I respect in this community. The alternative is unthinkable.
Sebastuein
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages