From api-return-197-apmail-openoffice-api-archive=openoffice.apache.org@openoffice.apache.org Wed Jan 23 08:37:03 2013 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-openoffice-api-archive@www.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-api-archive@www.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AA0FCCAED for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:37:03 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 38743 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2013 08:37:03 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-openoffice-api-archive@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 38624 invoked by uid 500); 23 Jan 2013 08:37:02 -0000 Mailing-List: contact api-help@openoffice.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: api@openoffice.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list api@openoffice.apache.org Received: (qmail 38588 invoked by uid 99); 23 Jan 2013 08:37:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:37:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.0 required=5.0 tests=RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: local policy) Received: from [93.17.128.13] (HELO smtp22.services.sfr.fr) (93.17.128.13) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:36:51 +0000 Received: from filter.sfr.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by msfrf2216.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 35CA37000182 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:36:31 +0100 (CET) Received: from [192.168.1.80] (83.7.75.86.rev.sfr.net [86.75.7.83]) by msfrf2216.sfr.fr (SMTP Server) with ESMTP id 0FCE87000056 for ; Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:36:31 +0100 (CET) X-SFR-UUID: 20130123083631648.0FCE87000056@msfrf2216.sfr.fr Message-ID: <50FFA10E.7080208@club-internet.fr> Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 09:36:30 +0100 From: Bernard Marcelly User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: api@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: Incompatible change for extensions References: <50F7DF5F.6090700@club-internet.fr> <20130122115127.GA10247@localhost> In-Reply-To: <20130122115127.GA10247@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org 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). Regards Bernard 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 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121582 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. >