https://bugs.documentfoundation.org/show_bug.cgi?id=150692
--- Comment #3 from Stephan Bergmann <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Caolán McNamara from comment #2) > well in cppuhelper::ServiceManager::init we could catch and throw only if > optional was false, but that'll just go as far as > ExtensionManager::synchronize and die with something else. Not sure if its > worth it to chase it done or just "WONTFIX" and "don't do that" :-) The cppuhelper::Service-/TypeManager initialization generates uncaught exceptions on the grounds that (a) something is probably severely wrong if such fundamental infrastructure is broken and (b) useful error reporting to the user is hard at this stage of the application bootstrap, We could swallow errors (and generate a SAL_WARN) here, either for all or only for non-essential (like the share/extensions) parts, and hope for the best. But as you found, even for something non-essential like share/extensions that will not get very far in practice. (The optional "?..." syntax had been introduced with <https://git.libreoffice.org/core/+/86c9f264f461e814c7e4f899a2d1e54363da053a%5E!/> "#99011# support optional rdb pathes" in 2002, but appears to be unused at least across LO itself. It might or might not be a good means to tell apart the non-essential parts mentioned above.) -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
