Dear OberonCore team,
OK, I do not know when you started reading the BB mailing list. But one of my first posts to this topic was about a single center of responsibility, and some on this list have shown their support for this idea. So, on your point 1 we seem to agree.
Concerning your second question, I guess this is a problem in translation only. If a framework is ported, it is, of course, not just a reuse of a name, but a real port. The idea, IMHO, would be that you take a package from BB-Win7 and then recompile it on BB-Linux and BB-Apple OS and BB-JVM without any changes necessary. Would downward compatibility to BB1.6-rc6 be maintained? Surely for HBBF1.7, but for HBBF2.0? Who knows! As you will well remember, BB1.6 is not downward compatible to BB1.2! Omi made the decision that the planned changes were more important than full downward compatibility, and it was well in Omi's rights to do so. Likewise, the Hypothetical single center of responsibility for BB would have the right to create a version in the future that is not fully downward compatible to 1.6, if that would be necessary.
I think it is great that you do a Russian documentation for 1.6, and you probably already have a Russian UI for 1.6. Obviously, a German version, an Italian or French version are not in your scope. The single center of responsibility needs to supervise this task for all languages we have team members for. Also, this could mean that CpcLanguage - or something like it! - becomes part of the HBBF, because without (something like) it, localization could not be easily done in one version.
So, basically I'm saying that the new BB development team needs to call the shots. We need that body, and we need it soon.
Rene
Gesendet: Sonntag, 18. August 2013 um 21:47 Uhr
Von: OberonCore <oberoncore{([at]})nowhere.xy An: BLACKBOX{([at]})nowhere.xy
Betreff: Re: [BLACKBOX] Aw: [BLACKBOX] The official position of the Russian OberonCore team about BlackBox Support
Dear Rene,
> if I understand your official position correctly, you do not concern yourselves with
> *) internalization of the basic BB framework
> *) adaption of the basic BB framework to newer versions of Windows
> *) porting of the basic BB framework to other platforms, like Linux, Apple OS and JVM
> *) adaption of the basic BB framework to better fit the state of the art
> In short, OberonCore does not see a need for a unified and central BB Framework 1.7.
> Is this correct?
1) United centre of responsibility for "unified and central BB Framework" is a precondition. There is no point in discussion about "unified and central BB Framework" without it.
Such centre may be assigned as the successor of BlackBox Support Oberon microsystems AG by acknowledgment. Or shall be elected by Community.
2) We are open to any development and it's our main activity (for example: support of BlackBox Russian documentation for BB 1.6 (
http://oberoncore.ru/projects/bb-docu-ru); BB1.6-rc6 Linux Console (
http://oberoncore.ru/projects/bb16lin-console)). Hypothetic "basic BB framework" (HBBBF) ported to newer Windows versions, Linux, Apple OS & so on… Is HBBBF compatible with standard BB? Or it inherit it's name only? Who can answer this question now?
There is the concrete public assembly — OberonCore BlackBox assembly on the other side. It's based on BlackBox Component Builder 1.6-rc6 (for Windows (XP, 32bit, …)) for now. And it's main development rule is "Primum non nocere".
Best regards,
OberonCore team.
----
To unsubscribe, send a message with body "SIGNOFF BLACKBOX" to LISTSERV{([at]})nowhere.xy