Hi Mathias, > Let me put it that way: undo actions should only record direct actions. > If changes in a component cause indirect changes elsewhere (e.g. by a > listener connection), these changes should not be recorded in an undo > action. Or the other way around: if actions in a sub component are > recorded, they should be made directly by the super component. Otherwise > you will get ugly code that always needs to know whether it is currently > in an undo action or not. This code is very prone to regressions. Been > there, done that, got to hate that. > > If the information provided to a listener is not sufficient, that should > be changed.
Let's agree to agree in theory :). I don't say its impossible (interestingly, while thinking about different ways to solve the problems raised by Ingrid's Chart-scenario, I also found that something like "isUndoRunning" is *only* needed if you violate the above, otherwise, we can go without it - which I'd prefer, since it's inherently broken in MT environments. Thus, in the current API in my CWS, it doesn't exist.), for the moment, it's just that I am really curious how difficult this turns out to be in reality ... Ciao Frank -- ORACLE Frank Schönheit | Software Engineer | frank.schoenh...@oracle.com Oracle Office Productivity: http://www.oracle.com/office --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
