Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
Stephan Bergmann wrote:
Rony G. Flatscher wrote:
Hi there,
just ran a little program to check, whether all registered services
are reflectable. Here is a list of registered services (OOo 2.0)
which are not reflectable:
what do you mean with "reflectable"?
obj=theTypeDescriptionManager.getByHierarchicalName(name);
throws an exception.
---rony
Technically, it is not necessary to have UNOIDL descriptions for
(old-style) services. However, I would consider that at least bad
style (if not an error). Feel free to create issues for the items on
your list.
Thank you, will do (will report all registered services which are not
reflectable as errors with the request to suply the UNOIDL descriptions
in future releases).
(Caveat: There might be cases where an object states that it supports
a service erroneously spelled N1, when in reality it supports a
service correctly spelled N2---that probably is the case with all the
com.sun.star.text.TextField... vs com.sun.star.text.textfield...
services on your list, for example. In such a case, a backwards
compatible fix would be to change the object so that it supports both
N1 and N2, but I would then not go so far as to actually provide a
UNOIDL description for N1.)
Right, that would not make too much sense as it would complicate
everything. OTOH, it is important to find a solution which will be able
to support those scripts/programs that have been using those services so
far (it seems so far that in this category the module ".textfield." vs.
".TextField." is the only one affected; but not sure about the other,
non-reflectable registered services for which there are no UNOIDL
definitions in the OOo 2.0 SDK either).
---rony
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
