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
