On 2/10/13 9:51 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 10/02/2013 21:21, Rob Weir a écrit : >> Did you not notice the title of this thread? Has it entirely escaped >> you that we're talking about 0^0 here? If you want to start another >> threat about extensions, then go ahead and I will comment there. But >> anyone of the intelligence of a grapefruit would not find it strange >> that I am discussing only 0^0 in this thread. > > And have you read my previous message? > I don't understand why there is almost nothing aired when there are > talks about breaking the compatibility of ALL the extensions because of > a minor issue. And here you're challenging a change that will affect > very few users.
"ALL the extensions" is of course completely nonsense. The change we talked about is only for extensions that define an own toolbar. And we can of course start a new discussion about the missing cooperation of extension developers to work with core developers. It can be relatively easy fixed by any extension developer. And of course with a little extra work in a way that breaks nothing. Minor effort in the extensions, much more and more complex code in the core. The question is always how we want to move forward. Changes are good if they help to attract more developers and if they help to improve the product over time. If developers can't change things and can't improve code etc. over time we will have a problem to find enough developers who are willing to maintain old incomprehensible code that we have in many areas. That don't mean that I support any kind of incompatible change but when we have a simple migration path in place and when we talk about a major version I will probably support most of them. Juergen > > You told in your first message that you were concerned that the change > would break the backward compatibility. > But are you not concerned by all the users having their extensions > deactivated by a minor API change??? > > There is your other message: > Le 09/02/2013 18:40, Rob Weir a écrit : >> I've added a new section to the 4.0 Release Notes for tracking changes >> that impact backwards compatibility: >> >> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes >> >> >> This would include changes to the public interfaces of AOO, including >> incompatible changes to API's (including spreadsheet functions), file >> formats, etc. > > But I don't see any reference to the extensions issue. > > If there is a real problem to be talked about, it's more the API change > that would break extensions compatibility. > Honestly, I don't care about the 0^0 issue. Not enough users will be > impacted. > > Hagar
