-----Original Message----- From: openh323-devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net [mailto:openh323- devel-bounces@lists.sourceforge.net] On Behalf Of Jan Willamowius
....
The main point for GnuGk is that there is very little to be gained from a move to OPAL. Its not that I dislike anything thats in there, we just don't need 90% of the framework OPAL provides.
....
And that is fine, you can stay with OpenH323.
There are two classes of legacy user: ones such as GnuGk for which OpenH323 v1.18 does exactly what they want and they need no more features. Except maybe the odd bug fix, the code is as it is.
The second class are people with ongoing application development are in continuous need of the "next new thing" in the feature list. These are the people we were hoping to make OPAL sufficiently attractive, due to its new whiz bang wonder gizmos, to convert to OPAL from OpenH323.
Oh, and suppose there is a third class of those who have not yet started their project. They should have no reason not to use OPAL. We don't want them to have a reason. And a major reason for moving OPAL to a its own project was not to "fork" the code, but to reduce the confusion between OpenH323 and OPAL.
I will reiterate what I and Craig have been saying all along: we are NOT abandoning OpenH323 completely. We just have not been doing any NEW work there as it is a duplication of effort. It is more akin to Ethereal and Wireshark, Ethereal is what it is at that point of time and all new stuff is in Wireshark. It is not, and never was, intended that this be a true "fork" where A goes it's way and B goes theirs. This is the whole reason why I am so disappointed with the ensuing result.
Remember, this whole thread started with someone asking the question "Should I use OpenH323 or OPAL, which is better?", a fair question but one that I did not want anyone to have to ask.
Robert Jongbloed OPAL/OpenH323 Architect and Co-founder.