openoffice-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Bernard Marcelly <>
Subject Re: Incompatible change for extensions
Date Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:36:30 GMT
Hi Ariel and all,

Bug 121582 is very vague and does not detail the proposed changes. It looks like 
an intended obfuscation, so that nobody will react in time.
The XSimpleFileAccess is indicated as merely an example, but I will develop on it.

If bug 121582 proposes for Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to create a new 
service+interface _and_ suppress the old service+interfaces, then it is exactly 
the same problem and methodology error as bug 121577 : force application 
developers to change working code without benefits. The change is only for 
esthetical reason.

I remember a saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

And for the current multiplication of XSimpleFileAccess interfaces : this is 
completely transparent for programmers in OpenOffice Basic, Python, and 
COM-Automation, since they don't have to query interfaces. And they represent 
probably 90 per cent of all application codes.

If bug 121582 proposes to transfer the functions of XSimpleFileAccess2 and 
XSimpleFileAccess3 into XSimpleFileAccess, and then delete XSimpleFileAccess2 
and XSimpleFileAccess3 : the change will "only" affect Java, BeanShell, 
Javascript, C++ developers. I doubt they will appreciate.

As says Hans Zybura, in the real world, various versions of OpenOffice are used 
in schools, companies, etc. Forcing different codes between versions is in fact 
a strong incentive to _not_ update existing and working versions.

There is not enough good designers; better spend efforts on correcting reported 
real bugs, or on useful improvements (e.g. a real integration of Python into 
OpenOffice, like Basic; or add the new dialog controls in the IDE toolbox).


Message de Ariel Constenla-Haile  date 2013-01-22 12:51 :
> Hi *,
> Replaying in general to the thread, that is based mainly on bug 121577.
> The discussion about incompatibility, centered on this bug, is
> meaningless: bug is
> the real code-incompatible change, every extension developer will have
> to check the code and adapt it to API changes introduced by this task.
> It would be interesting to hear arguments against implementing the
> changes needed to perform the task for bug 121582.

View raw message