openoffice-api mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ariel Constenla-Haile <>
Subject Re: Extension - AOO 4.1.1 - MacOS 10.9.4
Date Wed, 10 Sep 2014 18:07:42 GMT
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
> 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 64

- 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. 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 extension).

> > > 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 off-topic, 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
with 4.1.1, that's all, there were no changes in between.

Now, if you released a platform-specific version of your extension, and
set 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 so).

Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

View raw message