Hi Tamás,
On 24/11/16 18:34, Zolnai Tamás wrote:
> Thanks for discussing this, even tough this discussion did not lead to change.
Ah =) wait until Kendy has considered and implemented his magic
solution here.
> I have only one question for the future, if it ever comes into my mind
> to implement something which is related to this DAPI.
Fair question.
> Can I have some code pointers from the last 5 years which shows when
> it is "absolutely necessary" to break compatibility? To see when it's
> acceptable to do such thing.
I think its worth discussing it with the ESC if its significant. I the
call there was support for just extending the existing enum - if we
think that gets us to 100% of cases it will ever be in one (small)
break. TBH - none of us were that sure whether that was the case; I
think if you made a good case that it was just this one item that was
missing - forever, then - we could prolly tweak just that.
I guess wrt. API breaks - perhaps running a git log on the reference
UNO IDL gives a number of commits:
$ git log --numstat offapi/type_reference/offapi.idl
Of course - the functional changes to the implementations ;-) now that
is another matter, and far harder to police of course.
Personally I think Markus' take - that we shouldn't be using UNO API
for this internal stuff is spot-on - push the API problem to the edge:
but others have different views =)
Thanks,
Michael.
--
michael.me...@collabora.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot
_______________________________________________
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
https://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
