> Product: Application Framework
> Type: changed
> Title: Extension Identifiers, unopkg, pkgchk
> Posted by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Affected: -
> Effective from: CWS sb66
>
>
> *Flags*
> -------
> API/ BASIC [ ]
> Configuration [ ]
> File format change [ ]
> Help/ Guide [ ]
> Performance test [ ]
> Translation [ ]
> UI relevant [ ]
>
>
> *Description*
> -------------
> 1 Extensions can now contain an identifier element in their
> description.xml, giving the extension a unique identifier. This
> removes the current restriction that no two extensions can have the
> same filename.
> <http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=69910> gives a spec,
> but a few more notes are necessary:
>
> 1.1 An old extension with filename f (where f is "foo.jar",
> "foo.zip", "foo.uno.pkg", or "foo.oxt", for example) that has no
> explicit description.xml identifier element has an implicit identifier
> consisting of "org.openoffice.legacy." followed by the filename f
> (e.g., "org.openoffice.legacy.foo.jar",
> "org.openoffice.legacy.foo.zip", "org.openoffice.legacy.foo.uno.pkg",
> "org.openoffice.legacy.foo.oxt").
>
> 1.2 If a new extension wants to use the identifier feature, it has to
> be an .oxt extension (i.e., not a .zip or .uno.pkg extension, or a
> plain .jar etc. file) that has a dependency
> <OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value="2.2"/> (see
> <http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=70799>). (The
> reason is that OOo 2.1 and earlier store information about deployed
> extensions keyed on filenames, while OOo 2.2 and later store
> information keyed on identifiers. This has been implemented reasonbly
> backwards compatibly, but would break if OOo 2.1 or earlier is used to
> deploy an extension with explicit identifier, which is ignored by OOo
> 2.1, and OOo is then updated to OOo 2.2 or later.)
1.2 has been changed to be more user friendly and less error prone (I
hope): Every extension that can technically have an identifier (i.e.,
every extension that can have a description.xml---.oxt, .zip, or
.uno.pkg) can have an arbitrary identifier. No dependency on OOo 2.2 is
needed.
> 1.3 If a new extension does not qualify as of 1.2, it can still use
> an explicit description.xml identifier element (if it can have a
> description.xml at all, that is---i.e., if it is an .oxt, .zip, or
> .uno.pk extension), but the explicitly given identifier must match the
> implicit identifier the extension would otherwise get per 1.1.
As a consequence of the changes to 1.2, 1.3 has been dropped. Indeed,
new extensions (regardless of whether they are intended to be deployable
in OOo 2.1 and earlier) should not use explicit org.openoffice.legacy.
identifiers (but rather some guaranteed-unique explicit identifiers).
Explicit org.openoffice.legacy. identifiers should only be used for
updated versions of extensions that had no explicit identifier.
> 2 The unopkg command line tool has been changed incompatibly, in that
> unopkg remove and unopkg list now expect extension identifiers instead
> of extension filenames as arguments.
As another consequence of the changes to 1.2, this changes slightly (and
rather confusingly, I confess): In general, unopkg remove and unopkg
list now expect extension identifiers. However, in the special case
that an extension was deployed in OOo 2.1 or earlier, and OOo is
subsequently updated to OOo 2.2 or later, then the arguments to unopkg
remove and unopkg list must still be the extension filenames instead.
> 3 The deprecated pkgchk command line tool has been changed
> incompatibly to no longer work at all, see
> <http://www.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=18794>.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
