https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=119989
--- Comment #17 from Armin Le Grand <[email protected]> --- ALG: Hi Tan Li, thanks for the answer. I hope I have not interrupted your traditional holiday; holiday is holiday, no need to break it :-) I see your point, but still, is "IsExcel3DChart" needed? - "3DHeight" is a new API value, it does not exist before this proposed change - If it did not exist, it is not used yet, so if defining there is free choice how to define it - If true == IsExcel3DChart, 3DHeight is a relative value, applied to getTransformedDepth in the implementation - if false == IsExcel3DChart, getTransformedDepth is used directly, a evtl. set value of "3DHeight" is ignored. Noone is setting "3DHeight" up to today. Why not: - define property "3DRelativeHeight" instead of "3DHeight", default 100%, "Defines the Height of a pie segment relative to it's pedefined height" - No need to define "IsExcel3DChart" at all - In all cases, use getTransformedDepth and relative height value - With default, old behaviour will use 100% of getTransformedDepth, no change - With value set, new behaviour will work as needed Thus, "IsExcel3DChart" is not needed and the API stays minimal, only one more value needs to be added. The value in question (3DHeight) is a relative definition anyways, why not call it so and use/add it as such? Thanks in advance! -- You are receiving this mail because: You are the assignee for the bug.
