Matthias B. wrote:
> On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> For the time being we had to keep "OnLoad" for compatibility reasons
>> (both for registering as well as for sending), but the documentation
>> would be changed to suggest "OnOpen" instead. This can be changed (and
>> perhaps will be changed) in the first release that allows for
>> incompatible API changes (I assume this will be 4.0).
>>
>> Alternatively, we can stay with "OnLoad" until the incompatible change
>> and then switch to "OnOpen" without any intermediate compatibility
>> arrangements.
>>
>> Comments, anyone?
>
> That you even consider removing this event is exactly the lack of
> commitment to compatibility I have critized in the long thread about
> OOo quality recently. There is ONLY ONE acceptable solution for
> changing the name.
>
> - introduce the new event name
> - keep the old event name for compatibility FOR ALL ETERNITY.
>
> It is NOT acceptable to retire it with OOo 4.0! NOT acceptable to
> retire it with OOo 5.0.
> People build their businesses on OOo. Your petty interests in language
> aesthetics are irrelevant!
> If you are worried about the overhead of sending the same event twice,
> well, there's also this option:
>
> - Live with the bad name, compensate it with good documentation and
> then find something more productive to waste your time on than
> breaking existing code.
I don't want to argue here; it already was agreed upon allowing for
incompatible API changes somewhere in the future (I think it will be
4.0), something that never has happened until now (so I don't understand
where you see a lack of commitment to compatibility in the past). I
won't make incompatible changes just "for aesthetical purpose only", but
the reason why I'm asking for input here is that I already got
complaints from API users about the unfortunate change of event names.
I'm not against keeping "OnLoad" for eternity, if that is of any help
for whomever. I'm more concerned about the fact that currently we would
have two event names for the same event and I wanted to get input if
people see *this* as a problem.
Whether this persists "until eternity" or not is not so relevant for me.
So if I see serious concerns against removing it (though other APIs
surely will be changes somewhere in the future, so it's open for
discussion if being picky about this comparably easy problem is
justified), so be it. No problem for me.
I assume that your reply was meant to be a contribution to this topic.
But if you want to be taken seriously you definitely should work on your
tone. It is absolutely inacceptable - using All-Caps, too much
exclamation marks, bold insinuations ("aesthetics") and insults ("petty
interests") is not appreciated.
Ciao,
Mathias
--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "[email protected]".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
