Daniel B. wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Juergen Schmidt
<[email protected]> wrote:
Hi,
if we can all agree i would suggest that we don't change the code back.
The correct way will work with older versions of OOo as well and the code
have to be changed in the near future anyway.
What's your opinion? I can also live with Michaels suggestion to implement
this interface until OOo 4.0 but it's probably easier and better to change
the code now as later and potentially forget it.
Since our (and potentially a lot of other) extension breaks with this
change this is a major issue that prevents us from rolling out OOo
3.2. Reverting the change until OOo 4.0 would give us enough time to
update our extension and roll out the updated version. So I support
Michael's suggestion to re-implement the interfaces that are missing,
at least temporary, and document the change so that people are aware
of the issue and can adapt their macros/extensions.
until now you are the only one with this problem. How many places using
this code do you have in your extension? We gave you the necessary info
to do it correct. It should be not really a big change i guess but
anyway. I let it up to others to decide if it is a showstopper or not.
But how can we prevent you from rolling out 3.2 when it is not already
final and released? Either you change your broken or wrong extensions or
we do the changes back. You have to do it anyway in the near future
whereas we have double work. Sounds not really optimal ;-)
But don't get me wrong try to put it on the showstopper list.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected]
For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
