Hi Thorsten, >>>>> well, Win32 is only one platform, and experience tells that in >>>>> general, c++ extension *do* break between releases. But you're >>>>> right, that's not necessarily caused by ABI changes in the strict >>>>> meaning of the word, a case in point is the 3 layer OOo rework. >>>> Hu? >>>> >>> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=24706 >>> and >>> http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=24718 >>> for example. >> Maybe I am dumb, but I do not find any mention of broken C++ OOo >> extensions in those two mails. > > oh, I was under the impression the author is referring to c++ - so > then, it's Java? Should we add Java to the list of fragile > extension implementations as well? ;)
Not sure you're doing the topic a good with this .... The mentioned mails indeed talked about Java extensions broken by the new bootstrap mechanism (a pretty singular event, hopefully, so please let's not hang this too high). So, we cannot use them as arguments why C++ extensions break. All known (to me :) C++ extensions use the UDK API only, which I think we should be even more careful with than with the "normal" office API. If we are, then there's no reason why C++ should not work in different OOo versions ... (well, introducing a dependency to the compiler version or something like this, might be a good idea, but that's independent from API compatibility, IMO.) Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer frank.schoenh...@sun.com - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
