On 1/23/13 9:36 AM, Bernard Marcelly wrote:
> 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 it.
> 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.

exactly and that means a minor code change and a rebuild. If this kind
of cleanup changes are not allowed with a major release than we do
something wrong. You should not forget the benefit for new developers
that we want to reach. A cleaner and better API is much easier to learn
for them. Existing developers will have no trouble with adapting the
changes but all new ones will benefit.

> 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.

I don't see it so dramatically because I expect regular updates on newer
versions to benefit from general improvements and bugfixes (especially
security fixes).

> 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).

feel free to join the project and help to improve things like the Python
support, or improving the basic IDE. Remember volunteers are working on
the code base and you can't force them what they should do.

It's funny that people request and take more than they gave back. Really
if you think certain areas of the program need improvements please join
us and help to improve it.

Wake up this project is not longer driven by one single company but by
individuals. All project volunteers have to take action if they want to
help to make the project better and successful. Don't wait that other do
it for you.


> Regards
>   Bernard
> 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