openoffice-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Hans Zybura" <>
Subject RE: Extension - AOO 4.1.1 - MacOS 10.9.4
Date Thu, 11 Sep 2014 15:39:57 GMT

Hi Ariel,

> Hi Hans,
> On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 04:05:12PM +0200, Hans Zybura wrote:
> > I missed looking up  your link to
> >
> >
> > because I thought the information in the DevGuide
> >
> >
> > get_Platform
> >
> > should and would be valid and exhaustive. Highly important issue
> > 124783 is not even mentioned there, while a different, but
> > comparatively minor issue is.
> Certainly no, but the Developer's Guide is not the place to document such
> version related particularities; for example, most of the tokens listed as
> "supported" are not really supported anymore because since the move to
> the Apache Software Foundation only Win32, Linux 32/64, MacOSX
> 32 (AOO < 4.1)/64 ( AOO >= 4.1.0) are released.
> > > in fact, setting the platform to anything else than "all" will fail.
> >
> > Oh! Since when is this known? Where else is this important piece of
> > information available? Issue 124783 only says that token macosx_x86_64
> > will cause an error and prevent installation. It does not say that one
> > can't use any other token than "all". - OK, I see now that it follows
> > logically, but it's not very obvious, isn't it?
> Well, yes, IMO it's logic and obvious: if an extension target for MacOSX
> - cannot be installed with a wrong platform token
> - but cannot be installed with the proper platform token
> - then, don't set the platform in description.xml or set it to "all"
> > Shouldn't this fact be mentioned very explicitly in the DevGuide?
> IMO, no, that's not the place for such "peculiarities".
> > And in the 'Known Issues' part of the Release notes for AOO 4.1 and
> > 4.1.1?
> IMO the Release Notes are targeted to End-Users, and adding this to the
> "Known Issues" will only confuse End-User.

Let me cite the Release Notes (4.1 / 4.1.1):

"For the MacOSX version only, any extensions that are written in C++ will no
longer work and be marked as disabled in the AOO extensions manager. This is
because of the change of AOO from a 32-bit to a 64-bit application on
MacOSX. Please report the problem to the developer of the extension."

So why not mention the token bug?

> An extension developer that is
> developing a non-cross-platform extension for MacOSX should already be
> aware of the switch to 64 bit and the bug with platform="macosx_x86_64"
> (assuming that that developer will at least try to install his own
> > > > Our extension is written in pure StarBasic and does not contain
> > > > any direct system calls, so we don't expect any problems by a
> > > > change to a 64-bit AOO.
> > >
> > > No, and you don't need to set the platform if your extension has
> > > only OOBasic code!
> >
> > This is a severe misjudgment - maybe due to a kind of "programming
> > centered" point of view. Code alone doesn't make a product. There are
> > quite a lot of other possible reasons to mark and distribute platform
> > specific editions of an extension  - in spite of full code
> > compatibility. E.g. platform specific non-code components included
> > with an extension, product security, preventing customers from
> > installing the wrong thing for their platform, or considerations
> > concerning marketing and distribution, to name a few.
> The "has *only* OOBasic code" means that your extension is cross-platform
> and does not have any platform-specific "stuff". But this is getting
> and it is still unclear what your specific problem was, because:
> > We didn't have any problems reported so far with our extension on AOO
> > 4.1 and MacOS Maverick, so I'm rather surprised.
> If your extension was working in MacOSX with 4.1.0, it should still work
> 4.1.1, that's all, there were no changes in between.

The extension just can't be newly installed on MacOS/AOO 4.1.x, due to the
platform token bug. In our case, the problem is not that the extension isn't
working. This may be the reason why we didn't already have any users
complaining, when AOO 4.1 arrived: there were simply no new installations on
AOO 4.1 of our extension since that time - or nobody asked us. The
complaints came from 2 users who had just bought a new Mac, installed AOO
4.1.1 and then couldn't install our  extension.

> Now, if you released a platform-specific version of your extension, and
> platform="macosx_x86_64", I assume you tried at least to install the
> extension (in 4.1.0 or 4.1.1, it does not matter) before releasing it (not
sure if
> it is something logical and obvious; but it wouldn't be serious not to do

As I said in my first post: we don't have a Mac yet with MacOS >10.6.x, so
we couldn't test with AOO 4.1.x on a newer Mac. The world is just not such
an ideal place for small businesses as you seem to think.

About 97% of our users prefer Microsoft Office and our product (add-in)
based on Word. Of the 3% AOO (and LibreOffice) users of our Writer extension
product variety with similar functionality, more than 80% use it on Windows.
For a product like ours in the education market, where users tend to work
with the same computer hardware for more than 10 years, the number of
OpenOffice users with a newer MacOS where 64bit AOO 4.1.x can be installed
comes down to maybe a small two digit range. 

So you might understand that I simply don't have the time to constantly read
through all the bug reports on AOO dev or api mailing list, or search
through all issues, though I try. A bug like issue 124783 is really not a
thing I tend to search for extensively - why would I? And I simply don't
have the time to test our extension with every new release of AOO (or
LibreOffice - brrrr) on all platforms without concrete reason. Usually with
new minor releases a test on Windows will do. (Well, this time it didn't,

Conclusion: A proper developer documentation and Release Notes that are more
extension developer friendly would be helpful and very much appreciated.

Thanks for your comments, anyway.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message