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] Wed Apr 2 09:19:27 +0000
2008 -------
> I suggest to change it in this CWS. I'm afraid, it would stay that bad
> forever, otherwise. ;-)
Even if I promise? ;-) Well - I'll have a look.
> We have to find a solution for this problem in this CWS. You have to find
> the places where to supply an IH and where not. Always supplying an IH is
> obviously not working.
Well, I don't know how to solve it then :-( What I had was the following
IIRC:
#--- comphelper/source/misc/mediadescriptor.cxx
#+++ comphelper/source/misc/mediadescriptor.cxx
#@@ -754,9 +754,12 @@ sal_Bool
MediaDescriptor::impl_openStreamWithURL(const ::rtl::OUString& sURL)
# throw(::com::sun::star::uno::RuntimeException)
# {
# // prepare the environment
#+ css::uno::Reference< css::lang::XMultiServiceFactory >
xFactory( ::comphelper::getProcessServiceFactory(), uno::UNO_QUERY );
# css::uno::Reference< css::task::XInteractionHandler > xOrgInteraction
= getUnpackedValueOrDefault(
# MediaDescriptor::PROP_INTERACTIONHANDLER(),
#- css::uno::Reference< css::task::XInteractionHandler >());
#+ css::uno::Reference< css::task::XInteractionHandler > (
#+ xFactory->createInstance( rtl::OUString(
RTL_CONSTASCII_USTRINGPARAM("com.sun.star.uui.InteractionHandler") ) ),
css::uno::UNO_QUERY )
#+ );
#
# StillReadWriteInteraction* pInteraction = new
StillReadWriteInteraction(xOrgInteraction);
# css::uno::Reference< css::task::XInteractionHandler >
xInteraction(static_cast< css::task::XInteractionHandler* >(pInteraction),
css::uno::UNO_QUERY);
d
Ideas appreciated - the authentication dialog is needed there - think of a
user that does not want OOo to remember the password - then he needs to be
presented with the dialog every time (and that's not possible without the IH
from what I saw, but maybe I did not see everything?).
> I thought about this some time ago. IMO, we need a "close" command for the
> UCB that is executed by the application framework whenever a document gets
> closed.
OK - but let's agree that this is not going to be part of this CWS - is that
OK for you? 'file' UCP does not have this either.
> The property IsReadOnly has a predefined semantics. If you need something
> similar, but nt exactly the same semantics, you have to introduce a
> different property name. How about "IsLocked"?
Well - this way I would need to touch even the 'file' UCP to provide
the 'IsLocked' property as well instead of returning 'IsReadOnly', and other
parts of OOo to make this right; searching for all the occurrences, extend it
to handle it correctly, ...
Sorry, I refuse to do it in this CWS ;-) - I hope you understand.
> BTW, you should talk to tbe (on CC here) about a better way to present the
> user that a document is locked.
tbe: Or maybe you already have a solution for the above already ('IsLocked' or
something)?
> IIRC, it's actually your problem, because you introduced support for this
> property, but sort of "incomplete". But I'd go for the "IsLocked" property
> approach...
Well, I'll have a look if neon can return it somehow.
> No, we don't have a different implementation for StarOffice. The abstract
> classes are actually of no use. Feel free to remove them, if you like.
OK, I'll do it in the follow-up CWS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
