Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 8/1/13 12:10 AM, Mathias Röllig wrote: > Hi! > > I must correct myself: > > I wrote > >> But: It doesn't work for com.sun.star.frame.StartModule > > With an other extension I saw, it works! So I searched for the problem. > > For the first try to edit the Addons.xcu I have made a mistake and

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi! I must correct myself: I wrote But: It doesn't work for com.sun.star.frame.StartModule With an other extension I saw, it works! So I searched for the problem. For the first try to edit the Addons.xcu I have made a mistake and I inserted the new not at the right place. So AOO doesn't

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hello! Now I'm trying AOO 4.0 and have to work over my extensions. First: Thank you for the change! But: It doesn't work for com.sun.star.frame.StartModule (Should I file a separate issue or comment bug 121577?) Second: As stated in https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121577#c2 "Sett

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 11/02/2013 Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: And this incompatible API change isn't arguable, that is: it has already been discussed, I won't revert it, and won't accept anyone else reverting it, period. OK, and from the links and context I get this is a different issue than the one originally d

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2/11/13 12:24 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: > Hi, > > Sorry for the delay, I'm on vacations mode. > > On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:44:49PM +0100, Jrgen Schmidt wrote: >> Hi Ariel, >> >> after some talks about this topic at FOSDEM I was thinki

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi, Sorry for the delay, I'm on vacations mode. On Mon, Feb 04, 2013 at 01:44:49PM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > Hi Ariel, > > after some talks about this topic at FOSDEM I was thinking about it > again. What do you think how much effort it would be to create a new > scheme for the new extended

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi Jürgen, > see for example a toolbar entry for the new scheme: thanks, i will have a look ;-) Regards Oliver -- GnuPG key 0xCFD04A45: 8822 057F 4956 46D3 352C 1A06 4E2C AB40 CFD0 4A45 signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 On 2/4/13 6:12 PM, Oliver Brinzing wrote: > Hi > >> What do you think how much effort it would be to create a new >> scheme for the new extended toolbars and keep the old one at >> least for a while? > > +1 well it's just thinking nothing more. >

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi > What do you think how much effort it would be to create a new scheme > for the new extended toolbars and keep the old one at least for a while? +1 due to api changes (e.g. toolsbars, com.sun.star.awt.XMessageBox, ...) i cannot run my oo32 extension with aoo 3.5 at the moment. so testing is

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi Ariel, after some talks about this topic at FOSDEM I was thinking about it again. What do you think how much effort it would be to create a new scheme for the new extended toolbars and keep the old one at least for a while? I know it will be more work in the underlying code but we should at lea

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/25/13 3:50 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-25 13:55 : >> On 1/25/13 12:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >>> Rob Weir wrote: I also like the idea of marking a function as deprecated, maybe even supporting the new and old together for a release, to gi

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-25 13:55 : On 1/25/13 12:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Rob Weir wrote: I also like the idea of marking a function as deprecated, maybe even supporting the new and old together for a release, to give time for transition. If at all feasible, I would be fo

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/25/13 12:44 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > Rob Weir wrote: >> I also like the idea of marking a function as deprecated, maybe even >> supporting the new and old together for a release, to give time for >> transition. > > If at all feasible, I would be for this. Ideally, we should be able to > i

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Rob Weir wrote: I also like the idea of marking a function as deprecated, maybe even supporting the new and old together for a release, to give time for transition. If at all feasible, I would be for this. Ideally, we should be able to install a legacy extension by: recognizing it's using lega

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On Thu, Jan 24, 2013 at 11:53 AM, Hans Zybura wrote: >> -Original Message- >> From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] >> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:22 PM >> To: api@openoffice.apache.org >> Subject: Re: Incompatible change for exten

RE: Incompatible change for extensions

> -Original Message- > From: Jürgen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2013 3:22 PM > To: api@openoffice.apache.org > Subject: Re: Incompatible change for extensions > > On 1/23/13 3:08 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > > Message d

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/23/13 3:57 PM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 1/23/13 3:23 PM, Andreas Säger wrote: >> Am 23.01.2013 10:12, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >>> >>> feel free to join the project and help to improve things like the Python >>> support, or improving the basic IDE. Remember volunteers are working on >>> the cod

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/23/13 3:23 PM, Andreas Säger wrote: > Am 23.01.2013 10:12, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: >> >> feel free to join the project and help to improve things like the Python >> support, or improving the basic IDE. Remember volunteers are working on >> the code base and you can't force them what they should

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Am 23.01.2013 10:12, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > > feel free to join the project and help to improve things like the Python > support, or improving the basic IDE. Remember volunteers are working on > the code base and you can't force them what they should do. > > It's funny that people request and ta

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/23/13 3:08 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-23 10:12 : >> >> exactly and that means a minor code change and a rebuild. If this kind >> of cleanup changes are not allowed with a major release than we do >> something wrong. You should not forget the benefit f

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-23 10:12 : exactly and that means a minor code change and a rebuild. If this kind of cleanup changes are not allowed with a major release than we do something wrong. You should not forget the benefit for new developers that we want to reach. A cleaner and

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/23/13 9:36 AM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > Hi Ariel and all, > > Bug 121582 is very vague and does not detail the proposed changes. It > looks like an intended obfuscation, so that nobody will react in time. > The XSimpleFileAccess is indicated as merely an example, but I will > develop on it.

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi Ariel and all, Bug 121582 is very vague and does not detail the proposed changes. It looks like an intended obfuscation, so that nobody will react in time. The XSimpleFileAccess is indicated as merely an example, but I will develop on it. If bug 121582 proposes for Apache OpenOffice 4.0 to

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Hi *, Replaying in general to the thread, that is based mainly on bug 121577. The discussion about incompatibility, centered on this bug, is meaningless: bug https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121582 is the real code-incompatible change, every extension developer will have to check the

RE: Incompatible change for extensions

idea! Kind regards, Hans Zybura Hans Zybura Software Waldquellenweg 52 33649 Bielefeld Fon: +49-(0)521-9457-290 Fax: +49-(0)521-9457-292 > -Original Message- > From: Juergen Schmidt [mailto:jogischm...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, January 18, 2013 7:16 AM > To: api@openoffice.

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/19/13 3:47 AM, Martin Groenescheij wrote: > On 19/01/2013 9:43 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> Juergen Schmidt wrote: >>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121577 >>> The change is really easy and no big thing. >> >> Do we have a way to automatically produce a 4.0-compatible extensio

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 19/01/2013 9:43 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Juergen Schmidt wrote: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121577 The change is really easy and no big thing. Do we have a way to automatically produce a 4.0-compatible extension starting from a 3.x extension? Is it possible to have thes

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Juergen Schmidt wrote: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121577 The change is really easy and no big thing. Do we have a way to automatically produce a 4.0-compatible extension starting from a 3.x extension? I'm quite concerned to leave hundreds of extensions behind and asking t

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Am Freitag, 18. Januar 2013 um 04:26 schrieb Carl Marcum: > On 01/17/2013 05:19 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > > wrote: > > > On 1/17/13 3:00 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > > > > Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-17 13:19 : > > > > > > > > > > I d

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Am Donnerstag, 17. Januar 2013 um 23:19 schrieb Rob Weir: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Jürgen Schmidt > wrote: > > On 1/17/13 3:00 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > > > Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-17 13:19 : > > > > > > > > I disagree, the old mechanism is a design bug and should

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 01/17/2013 05:19 PM, Rob Weir wrote: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: On 1/17/13 3:00 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-17 13:19 : I disagree, the old mechanism is a design bug and should be resolved. It was always planned to fix th

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 10:02 AM, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: > On 1/17/13 3:00 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: >> Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-17 13:19 : >>> >>> I disagree, the old mechanism is a design bug and should be resolved. It >>> was always planned to fix this a major release. Now with

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/17/13 3:00 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-17 13:19 : >> >> I disagree, the old mechanism is a design bug and should be resolved. It >> was always planned to fix this a major release. Now with 4.0 we can make >> such changes and we had long discussions abo

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

Message de Jürgen Schmidt date 2013-01-17 13:19 : I disagree, the old mechanism is a design bug and should be resolved. It was always planned to fix this a major release. Now with 4.0 we can make such changes and we had long discussions about incompatible changes for major releases. Extensions

Re: Incompatible change for extensions

On 1/17/13 12:24 PM, Bernard Marcelly wrote: > Hello, > > I read report 121577 and did not notice the problem. > > > Then I found this in the dev mailing list : > > "I noti