Hi Rony, >> The fact is that the usability and compatibility with StarBasic or >> other scripting languages is not a requirement for new API. (AFAIK) > If that is true, it is shooting in oneselves foot! > :( > > So is that really true?
As said in my other reply, making something an requirement doesn't in itself. While having some kind of check list for API designs is a good thing, what needs to be changed is the habit when designing APIs, the awareness that our UNO API is the interface between OOo and it's clients, and thus the importance of a well-designed API. Without this awareness, any check list will be useless. > What about enhancing StarBasic then which would allow it to be fully > able to exploit any of the OOo services, no matter whether they are old > or newly developped services ? The concrete problem here is not with "old" vs. "new" services, in fact (AFAIK) Basic nowadays supports new services pretty well (this wasn't the case when they were introduced). The problem here (as I understood it from the mails so far, I didn't try myself) is the missing direct support of css.uno.Type in Basic. I'm all in for enhancing this, but know too little details to judge whether this is feasible and doable. 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
