Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote: > Is there a good reason to not do the changes incrementally? Yes, there is a very good reason. Every incompatible change causes pain, no matter how many individual changes it contains. So putting as much changes together as possible into one change is better.
In case you don't see it: the biggest pain is caused by the fact that we have to declare every extension as incompatible in every release where at least one incompatible change has been made, as there is no way to find out which types an extension uses (and it may be exactly the one you have changed). So your plea for incremental incompatible changes even in minor releases basically destroys the idea of extensions more or less completely, as their life cycle effectively would be limited to a maximum of six months. In fact it's even less than that as you would gain 6 months only if the extension was released at the same time as the office version it is compatible to. I don't see a big problem with having an XView2. These are just names, nothing more. The code using XView2 wouldn't be better if it used XView instead. In case your esthetical feelings were hurt by the "2" at the end, a simple macro #define XVIEW XView2 or similar would solve this at least for your code without hurting others by an incompatible change. There is no advantage in the incompatible change except that it could be seen as a little bit less ugly (though I even don't see that). That's not the kind of pain that I would see as a justification for an incompatible change. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[email protected]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected]
