To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=29152





------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mon Mar 31 15:52:20 +0000 
2008 -------
kso: I knew this was not going to be easy ;-)  So:

> #i84137# "Remove gnome-vfs from startup procedure"

Sorry, this was a mistake during commit (forgot that our GnomeVFS section 
contains a bit more than just the locking patches), reverted in the CWS.

> remove comphelper::getProcessServiceFactory() calls

I thought that the agreement in the above was to clean up this in a follow-up 
CWS.  If you really want to have it cleaned up now, the patch will get even 
more complex and harder to integrate :-(  But of course, I can do it.

> remove the hack to create your own Interaction Handle

This opens another ugly can of worms :-(  Of course I tried it first, but then 
even more parts of OOo had to be touched - eg. you get tons of dialogs 
like 'File blahbleh.xcu is not available' during startup if there was always 
an interaction handler available, etc.

> remove the hard cast from XStream to NeonInputstrem

Removed on the expense of adding 2 more parameters to GET() - hopefully better 
now.

> XOutputStream, XActiveDataSink "open"-variants

I did not find a way do that, unfortunately :-(  The stream in these case does 
not stay open, it is just read, and thrown away.  You get no information when 
the document is closed, so you have no way to unlock the file again.

Of course, the stream is locked while performing save (using the other UCB 
access methods), but that was there already before my changes, and it 
co-operates (uses the same lock store).

> the implementation of property "IsReadOnly" and "SupportactiveStreaming" is
not acceptable as it is now

Oh - such stuff was in the WebDAV UCP itself ages before when the gnome-vfs 
locking was introduced (see eg. checking for 'Title' property in OOG680_m*), 
and I just mimicked that at that time (and I did not update it after it 
vanished).

Fixed in the CWS now.

> "IsReadOnly" implementation seems to be a hack

Well - I need to return 'true' there when we are locked - so that the UI can 
react accordingly, and has nothing to do with the fact if the resource is 
really read-only on the remote end, or not.  If we had better way to present 
the user that it is locked, I would use that one ;-)

The fact that 'IsReadOnly' property is not implemented (got from the remote 
end) is not really my problem here ;-) - but of course can be addressed in a 
follow-up CWS if necessary.

> More comments to follow after I found the time to do a detailed analysis of
> your changes ;-)

Oh - please don't make it too bad, or I'll run away screaming ;-)  BTW, why 
are there the abstract classes (DAV*.hxx)?  Do you have a different 
implementation (not using neon) in StarOffice?  Or is it just remnant of some 
other implementation, and would deserve cleanup as well?

Thank you a lot for your feedback!

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to