Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > > 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). > Hi Frank,
uh, I did use a ";)", right? Anyway, sorry for misunderstanding the post. > 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.) > Compiler versions tend to change, as well as the baseline. And as pointed out, there's other things that can go wrong (especially on non-windows platforms). At any rate, I'd be fine agreeing on the "c++ compatibility should have less weight" rule you suggested elsewhere - after all, if you need to recompile your c++ extension anyway because a new method or exception has been added to an interface, you're doing that with an updated udk, don't you? Cheers, -- Thorsten --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
