Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
Hi Stephan,
- The owner of an extensible interface can add members to its end
(inherited interfaces, methods, attributes).
Why at the end only? Do we gain something with this restriction, and do
we gain it in *all* language bindings, or would some bindings "break"
regardless of it?
The C++ language binding would not (without modifications I would not
dare to think about) be able to handle anything else (incl. inheriting
from extensible interfaces). So this sketch of a proposal is written
from the perspective of "how can we modify existing interfaces without
the current C++ language binding breaking down when mixing clients
compiled against old interface versions with producers built against new
interface versions." (All other languages should be more flexible here,
so that I assume no extra problems for other language bindings.)
Yes, the "at the end" cried "C++" loudly ...
Sadly, this implies that "semantic grouping" of interfaces/attributes
gets lost, unless we enhance autodoc to re-introduce this no matter the
order in the IDL file.
Be it. Better than nothing ...
<http://www.openoffice.org/issues/process_bug.cgi> for the records.
-Stephan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
