Hi, Robert Vojta ha scritto: > On Wed, May 13, 2009 at 7:14 PM, Mathias Bauer <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Mathias, > >> The best documentation is an API that doesn't need one. This deals with >> the fact that people don't like to read documentation. Having "speaking" >> names for events is a good thing per se, not just some "language >> aesthetics". > > I totally agree here. I'd vote for better event names (= self > explanatory). As an extension / component developer I have no problem > with event name modification / removal / ... in 4.x, 5.x, ... even > from our business application point of view. It's just minor > incompatiblity, which can be easily fixed and will lead to shorter > documentation = in our source code, in OO.o API documentation. >
agree 100% on everything +1 for improved event names. No problems with removal of deprecated names from the next major version. The fix for external components using the old name is very easy and the extension framework offers all the necessry tools to manage the change with end-users (auto-updates of extensions) I develop extensions too and in general I'm very happy with openoffice and its API, not because it's perfect and promises ethernal compatiblity. These would be utopistic expectations. If you need eternal compatibility just stay with ooo 1.0 forever. I'm happy if API gets better and evolve version by version. It's obvious that at certain point, incompatible changes must happen, so the real problem is not "IF" but just "HOW" and about this point I'd say that I'd even prefer a bit more "aggressive" policy ciao Paolo M --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
