Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
On 08/05/2015 Amenel VOGLOZIN wrote: Like Stephan Bergmann, I also think that the current test for newer version cannot remain as it is. I have adopted the version scheme based on the date as Andrea recommended. But I am quite uncomfortable with: 1- effectively asking the entire extension developer community to adopt a version scheme just so they can work; 2- having an overlook/mistake/comparison bug remaining in some code that does not implement the intended action. I'm not sure we have understood messages the same way. I'm definitely not asking anyone to adopt a .MM.DD numbering scheme, I'm just saying that I do so and that it works for me. I think we all agree that any numbering scheme where alphabetical order is equal to numbering order (e.g., version 1.000, version 1.001, ..., version 1.009, version 1.010...) would work well with no surprises. I though we had a bug with situations such as 0.9 - 0.10; Stephan wrote that the bug is either not there or not as bad as I thought and I trust him more than my memories from years ago when I was investigating the issue for one extension only. I'll post other comments to https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126298 when I have time for further checks, but I wanted to make the above clear before doing that. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
On 05/02/2015 08:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: According to description.xml https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata according to the application. I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version 99.0 and version 100.0, version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a 1). The intent of course is that 100.0 is considered greater than 99.0, and the actual code should also implement that correctly (cf. desktop/qa/deployment_misc/test_dp_version.cxx). However, I see that A total order is defined on versions via lexicographical comparison (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions) can be mis-interpreted. What is meant is a lexicographical ordering over the alphabet of natural numbers, not digits-and-dots characters. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN waav_zoungla-o...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hi, Like Stephan Bergmann, I also think that the current test for newer version cannot remain as it is. I have adopted the version scheme based on the date as Andrea recommended. But I am quite uncomfortable with: 1- effectively asking the entire extension developer community to adopt a version scheme just so they can work; 2- having an overlook/mistake/comparison bug remaining in some code that does not implement the intended action. Is there an entry about this in the issue tracker? I put one here: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126298 Regards, -Amenel. De : Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com À : api@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 8 mai 2015 8h42 Objet : Re: Description.xml/Version propper user On 05/02/2015 08:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: According to description.xml https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata according to the application. I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version 99.0 and version 100.0, version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a 1). The intent of course is that 100.0 is considered greater than 99.0, and the actual code should also implement that correctly (cf. desktop/qa/deployment_misc/test_dp_version.cxx). However, I see that A total order is defined on versions via lexicographical comparison ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions ) can be mis-interpreted. What is meant is a lexicographical ordering over the alphabet of natural numbers, not digits-and-dots characters. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
Hi, Like Stephan Bergmann, I also think that the current test for newer version cannot remain as it is. I have adopted the version scheme based on the date as Andrea recommended. But I am quite uncomfortable with: 1- effectively asking the entire extension developer community to adopt a version scheme just so they can work; 2- having an overlook/mistake/comparison bug remaining in some code that does not implement the intended action. Is there an entry about this in the issue tracker? Regards, -Amenel. De : Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com À : api@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 8 mai 2015 8h42 Objet : Re: Description.xml/Version propper user On 05/02/2015 08:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: According to description.xml https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata according to the application. I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version 99.0 and version 100.0, version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a 1). The intent of course is that 100.0 is considered greater than 99.0, and the actual code should also implement that correctly (cf. desktop/qa/deployment_misc/test_dp_version.cxx). However, I see that A total order is defined on versions via lexicographical comparison (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions) can be mis-interpreted. What is meant is a lexicographical ordering over the alphabet of natural numbers, not digits-and-dots characters. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
On 02/05/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: My biggest concern is that the extension manager 'catch' the published updates correctly with the extension site. Internally, this used to work this way (and probably still does): the Extensions site advertises the latest version of its extensions (like, it says, the latest version of hunspell.dictionary.english -this is a made-up identifier- is 2015.05.01); OpenOffice does the comparison and if it determines that the installed version is older then it proposed the update. In short: if you install version 0.9, then you upload version 0.10, the Extensions site will advertise that the latest version is 0.10; but OpenOffice will consider 0.9 to be newer (comes later in alphabetical order) than 0.10 and won't ask you to update. Using a date-based schema solved all these issues for me. This is why I use and recommend it. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
