On 19/05/14 15:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote: >> On 19/05/14 08:23, Stephan Bergmann wrote: >>> On 05/16/2014 06:39 PM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > >> [...] > >>>> So, the question is "why does this code enforce this condition, >>>> and can we change it"? Can we just remove the condition >>>> altogether, or should we add this case: > >>>> || sOriginalUrl.match("$(INST)") > >>>> Noel? Uray? You are our Basic "FindTheExpert"s. What's your >>>> opinion on this? > >> It seems to me that the code there (which I admit I am not familiar >> with) is all to do with extensions and management of extensions >> right? In this case you are talking about trying to override a >> built-in library with an extension, > > Yes. > >> the code it would seem rightly tries to prevent an extension from >> doing that. I mean there are wizards, conversions, routines >> etc. that are considered part of the system that shouldn't be >> 'replaced' under the hood. > > Naively, why not? If an extension wants to improve one of our wizards > or conversion, why forbid it?
this has the potential to create hard-to-debug failures. >> Access2Base is considered a part of the core isn't it? it isn't >> shipped as an extention, it is shipped as part of the product, (...) >> Access2Base is either part of the product or it's not. > > I don't think this was a very conscious decision. Access2Base started > its life as an extension that got integrated into LibreOffice, but is > still available as an extension for other branches / forks of the > code. It got shipped as part of the product since that was easier to > set up and LibreOffice was (my perception) moving away from bundled > extensions anyway. > >> it seems ato me that you are trying to get around the rules of no-new >> features etc. by exploiting the extension mechanism. > > No, extensions are *very* *much* *designed* to allow addition of new > features to LibreOffice! "addition", but not "replacement", especially not "potentially partial replacement". with a "bundled extension" it would work to replace it, because there LO knows the "boundaries" of what is being replaced and can disable the whole bundled extension; but when replacing something that's built-in you can't assume that it was ever designed to be replaced, you can end up with a mixture of built-in files and extension files loaded that doesn't work. if you want to bundle something that can be replaced by the user, do it as a bundled extension. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice