Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
On 05/02/2015 08:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: According to description.xml https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata according to the application. I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version 99.0 and version 100.0, version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a 1). The intent of course is that 100.0 is considered greater than 99.0, and the actual code should also implement that correctly (cf. desktop/qa/deployment_misc/test_dp_version.cxx). However, I see that A total order is defined on versions via lexicographical comparison (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions) can be mis-interpreted. What is meant is a lexicographical ordering over the alphabet of natural numbers, not digits-and-dots characters. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
On Fri, May 8, 2015 at 6:04 AM, Amenel VOGLOZIN waav_zoungla-o...@yahoo.fr wrote: Hi, Like Stephan Bergmann, I also think that the current test for newer version cannot remain as it is. I have adopted the version scheme based on the date as Andrea recommended. But I am quite uncomfortable with: 1- effectively asking the entire extension developer community to adopt a version scheme just so they can work; 2- having an overlook/mistake/comparison bug remaining in some code that does not implement the intended action. Is there an entry about this in the issue tracker? I put one here: https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=126298 Regards, -Amenel. De : Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com À : api@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 8 mai 2015 8h42 Objet : Re: Description.xml/Version propper user On 05/02/2015 08:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: According to description.xml https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata according to the application. I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version 99.0 and version 100.0, version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a 1). The intent of course is that 100.0 is considered greater than 99.0, and the actual code should also implement that correctly (cf. desktop/qa/deployment_misc/test_dp_version.cxx). However, I see that A total order is defined on versions via lexicographical comparison ( https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions ) can be mis-interpreted. What is meant is a lexicographical ordering over the alphabet of natural numbers, not digits-and-dots characters. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor 882C 4389 3C27 E8DF 41B9 5C4C 1DB7 9D1C 7F4C 2614
Re: Description.xml/Version propper user
Hi, Like Stephan Bergmann, I also think that the current test for newer version cannot remain as it is. I have adopted the version scheme based on the date as Andrea recommended. But I am quite uncomfortable with: 1- effectively asking the entire extension developer community to adopt a version scheme just so they can work; 2- having an overlook/mistake/comparison bug remaining in some code that does not implement the intended action. Is there an entry about this in the issue tracker? Regards, -Amenel. De : Stephan Bergmann sberg...@redhat.com À : api@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé le : Vendredi 8 mai 2015 8h42 Objet : Re: Description.xml/Version propper user On 05/02/2015 08:47 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/04/2015 Alexandro Colorado wrote: According to description.xml https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements#Element_.2Fdescription.2Fversion The following is described: Required. A textual representation of the extension version. ... I want to confirm the policy and propper use of the metadata according to the application. I think it is simply a string, compared within OpenOffice using a string comparison (which is not optimal: if you have version 99.0 and version 100.0, version 100.0 comes before 99.0 since it starts with a 1). The intent of course is that 100.0 is considered greater than 99.0, and the actual code should also implement that correctly (cf. desktop/qa/deployment_misc/test_dp_version.cxx). However, I see that A total order is defined on versions via lexicographical comparison (https://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Extension_Versions) can be mis-interpreted. What is meant is a lexicographical ordering over the alphabet of natural numbers, not digits-and-dots characters. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: api-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: api-h...@openoffice.apache.org
