> One nit: since the automatic implementation name derivation looks kind > of fragile (and most of the time, I _do_ declare my service > implementations in anonymous namespaces) - how about disabling that > feature by default? I have the impression that not much of OOo > development outside Sun takes place on Windows, and specifying one > (more) string at the constructor is really not that much overhead...
Yes, the current implementation disallows the use of anonymous namespaces (at least on Windows, the dll cannot be registered). I agree, it is really not much work to specify an implementation name, but it would be nice to get rid of it. IMO the current (though not specified) rule inserting a "comp." into the service name to make an implementation name, e.g. "org.openoffice.package.MyService" => "org.openoffice.comp.package.MyService" is even more fragile. I think using a named namespace (instead of an anonymous) is not really overhead, and, with the prepended library name, the implementation name is unique: - double class definitions in the same library leads to link error - use of anonymous namespace for class_ leads to registration error Of course, the safe solution would be a globally unique identifier (GUID), but much more overhead. regards, -Daniel --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
