Hello Jürgen, *

On Thursday 26 November 2009, 12:36, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
> mmh, it seems that we have a classical problem where you have
> implemented a macro based on a not documented implementation detail. But
> the implementation gets cleaned up for 3.2.
> 
> The problem is that the correct way is also not well documented :-(
> 
> In this case it would be correct to check the TextPortionType and in
> case of a text field ask for the property "TextField". It should be
> possible to ask for the property always and do the necessary checks...
> 
> I am not sure if we can or should mark this as a show stopper because it
> was an implementation detail. And the clean up of the code makes sense
> and we don't really want to change it back.
> 
> Maybe the responsible developer can shed some light on this and give us
> some more reasons for the change.
> 
> We have definitely to fix the documentation to reflect the correct way.
> 
> To avoid such problems in the future it is probably a good idea to ask
> here on this list first before you use an API that is not documented.
> Often enough the documentation is simply missing or incomplete.
> 
> We should be careful with the available introspection tools. They
> provide great help and are necessary but the user of these tools should
> at least check the documentation too. This way we can improve the
> documentation as well.

this issue has the same "background" as the one with the TextCursor properties 
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=100798

For the TextPortion issue, on a DEV300_m65 the documentation seems corrected 
(though I didn't check every property) 
http://svn.services.openoffice.org/opengrok/xref/DEV300_m65/offapi/com/sun/star/text/TextPortion.idl#130

IMHO common properties should be moved to the TextRange service (both a 
TextCursor and a TextPortion are TextRanges).


Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]

Reply via email to