Hi Frank,
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany escribió:
For the interest of the API users amongst you:
while we are at it ...
There actually is no dedicated channel for announcing interface
enhancements such as the above, i.e. new/improved implementations of
Base's UNO API, which could be of use to people scripting Base in any way.
There is [EMAIL PROTECTED], which we use for this purpose so far.
However, this is kind of a general-purpose list - it does not
distinguish between interface announcements addressed to C++ core
developers of OOo and interface announcements addressed to UNO API users
of OOo.
well, I heard about this mailing list and wanted to subscribe this the
other days (when I discovered once again some undocumented API), so I
went to find it within the API project mailing lists: I thought
"interface-announce" meant API-interface announce, but as you point the
current interface-announce is a very vague multi purpose list.
So I'd like an [EMAIL PROTECTED] (a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] may be is too particular), this
way every time a developer develops some interfaces is forced to
announce them AND include them in the IDL reference [1].
Does anybody of you have an opinion whether this is necessary? Say,
I'd say yes, for the previous reason:
* developers should be "forced" to make their interfaces public in this
mailing list ("forced" could mean this may be a prerequisite to include
a CWS in the main stream)
* once made public everyone interested can check their correctness
before being included [2]
* everyone can check that they are *actually* documented, by including
them in the IDL [3] (as actually there are services/interfaces NOT
documented but implemented)
something like [EMAIL PROTECTED], or even only
[EMAIL PROTECTED] Do you think that'd be useful (if
properly fed, of course)?
I vote for [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And the actual interface-announce should be changed to something like
internal-cpp-or-whatever-interface-announce so that we all don't get
confused anymore.
Regards
Ariel.
[1] This is not always the case; simple example: the XML SAX API has no
services in the IDL, only interfaces, but there are SAX services among
the service manager's available services! oh shame on them!
[2] An example of an interface not very good checked before being
included in the main codeline:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=86728
[3] That services/interfaces are implemented but not documented is not
only the developer's fault, it ALSO *our* fault, API clients. The
example I gave above, is a good case: com.sun.star.xml.sax.Parser has
been used for a long time (all quotes go back to DannyB example in
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=4907 form 2004!), but
nobody ever filed an issue complaining that this service is not
documented at all (nor the others in XML SAX API
http://api.openoffice.org/docs/common/ref/com/sun/star/xml/sax/module-ix.html).
--
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.ArielConstenlaHaile.com.ar/ooo/
"Aus der Kriegsschule des Lebens
- Was mich nicht umbringt,
macht mich härter."
Nietzsche Götzendämmerung, Sprüche und Pfeile, 8.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
