Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
Hello Frank,
On Monday 29 June 2009, 07:43, Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany
wrote:
Hi,
would adding a method to an existing published interface be considered
too incompatible for a 3.2 release?
In particular, css.awt.XView has a method setZoom, but not a getZoom,
which I'd like to add. I could create a crutch called XView2, deriving
from XView, having only this one said method. However, it would lead to
a better API (IMO), if we would simply add the method to XView.
Now XView is "published", but did't we say that there's a certain type
of incompatible API changes which we should consider to allow for
non-major OOo releases?
to make it short, i would support you to add it. If we make the change
we should start with a new wiki page to document the change and a
migration path even if it would be trivial.
was there an agreement on that? I didn't have time to understand the reasons
given for adding a FilterOperator2, carrying with it a TableFilterField2 and a
XSheetFilterDescriptor2; but the names just tell me there was no agreement.
I think that there was an agreement to allow incompatible changes for
major releases. And we talked about some specific changes that might be
also allowed for minor releases. But this changes are not yet defined in
detail... Adding a method to an existing interface as Frank suggested
would be of course such a change. No influence on Basic or other
languages using invocation. Only build incompatible in C++ as long as
you don't implement the interface on your own...
Juergen
Regards
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
