Hi Ariel and all,

Bug 121582 is very vague and does not detail the proposed changes. It looks like an intended obfuscation, so that nobody will react in time.
The XSimpleFileAccess is indicated as merely an example, but I will develop on 

If bug 121582 proposes for Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to create a new service+interface _and_ suppress the old service+interfaces, then it is exactly the same problem and methodology error as bug 121577 : force application developers to change working code without benefits. The change is only for esthetical reason.

I remember a saying: "If it ain't broke don't fix it".

And for the current multiplication of XSimpleFileAccess interfaces : this is completely transparent for programmers in OpenOffice Basic, Python, and COM-Automation, since they don't have to query interfaces. And they represent probably 90 per cent of all application codes.

If bug 121582 proposes to transfer the functions of XSimpleFileAccess2 and XSimpleFileAccess3 into XSimpleFileAccess, and then delete XSimpleFileAccess2 and XSimpleFileAccess3 : the change will "only" affect Java, BeanShell, Javascript, C++ developers. I doubt they will appreciate.

As says Hans Zybura, in the real world, various versions of OpenOffice are used in schools, companies, etc. Forcing different codes between versions is in fact a strong incentive to _not_ update existing and working versions.

There is not enough good designers; better spend efforts on correcting reported real bugs, or on useful improvements (e.g. a real integration of Python into OpenOffice, like Basic; or add the new dialog controls in the IDE toolbox).


Message de Ariel Constenla-Haile  date 2013-01-22 12:51 :
Hi *,

Replaying in general to the thread, that is based mainly on bug 121577.

The discussion about incompatibility, centered on this bug, is
meaningless: bug https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121582 is
the real code-incompatible change, every extension developer will have
to check the code and adapt it to API changes introduced by this task.

It would be interesting to hear arguments against implementing the
changes needed to perform the task for bug 121582.

Reply via email to