To comment on the following update, log in, then open the issue:
http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=64717
User kendy changed the following:
What |Old value |New value
================================================================================
Status|RESOLVED |REOPENED
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Resolution|INVALID |
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------- Additional comments from [EMAIL PROTECTED] Thu May 11 05:22:28 -0700
2006 -------
a) openTarget() still opens a target - which is taken as the first argument.
The difference in my patch is _where_ the target is open - in user share, or in
NoLang share according to the new parameter. I still do not see a reason why
not to change that - it's documented, etc. The statement 'AND (!) writing on
the user layer' is just not true; have a look at the code, and you'll see that
the target is open read-only if the read/write open request fails.
But anyway, I have no problem with renaming openTarget() to something more
sensible so that it would allow me do the needed change. Or - of course - I
can even copy'n'paste it to a new method, but I'd like to avoid that...
b) If you really want to store everyting in current.xml, I guess I can quite
easily extend the code so that it stores all the accelerators there after it
parses all the needed files, I see no problem with that...
c) Sure! But how much time will it take to re-implement? 3 months? More?
And if you plan it for 3.0 - it is at least 1 year from now; probably more.
d) I'll try that, I've probably overlooked something.
e) Again - no problem in changing the order of reading the files provided that
I change the code in framework/source/xml/acceleratorconfigurationreader.cxx
(but the assertion there is commented out, just a warning is issued). I wanted
my changes to be touching the minimal set of files; but surely I can patch
acceleratorconfigurationreader.cxx as well.
Sorry to ask that - but why did you make the issue 'INVALID'? I understand
that you have concerns wrt. the code; but I am willing to fix all the issues.
Provided that you want to throw all this away in favor of the XCS/XCU
configuration later anyway, what's wrong with an intermediate solution?
So - if I fix a), b), d) and e) - will you at least think about allowing this
patch in? ;-)
Thank you in advance!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Please do not reply to this automatically generated notification from
Issue Tracker. Please log onto the website and enter your comments.
http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/project_issues.html#notification
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
