Juergen Schmidt wrote: >> The given XView interface is effectively *only* implemented in the >> toolkit module, and chances that it's implemented outside the OOo code >> base are rather low (since all the code around it does not really allow >> for pure UNO components outside the OOo code, but that's another topic). >> So, I'd say we're on the safe side here. > i agree that we are probably safe here. But it shows also that a general > rule is or can be problematic. Whereas a change like yours is probably > harmless other changes of the same category can break many external > solutions depending on the usage of the changed interface. That is the > reason why we should discuss the changes in public and find a common > agreement for the proposed changes...
It's my experience that establishing roles with too much preconditions will cause endless discussions, not in every case, but in many. So I would prefer to treat every incompatible change in the same way. I could accept to make one exception: if an API is not implemented or used in OOo at all we can safely assume that changing (or better: replacing) it will not cause problems in extensions or code working with OOo. But if an interface is implemented or used in OOo it's just wild guessing whether it is used somewhere else and leaves too much room for discussions. 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 "nospamfor...@gmx.de". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@api.openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@api.openoffice.org
