On 19/05/14 14:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote: [...] > 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. IMHO moving away == moving functionality into the core => stable api with the same rules as the rest of the code > >> 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! sure extensions are very much designed to add new functionality (also independantly updateable from thing (libreoffice) they extend ) they are not designed to replace in an uncontrolled way core functionality, that leads to a maintenance (&security??) nightmare scenarios [...] >> But.... in anycase although Access2Base is part of the core, part of >> the product etc. it is afaik completely selfcontained (and >> essentially a separately maintained subsystem) in this case I think >> there is a good argument to bend the rules regarding updating the >> version of Access2Base shipped, we already do that occasionly I >> think? > Well, that means we ship a changing API into our stable line (I mean > patchlevel updates). I'm not comfortable with this. I'd be far much > comfortable if people that wanted the changed API installed it > explicitly as an extension. [...] then Access2Base should be an extension, they are designed with that in mind, a bundled extension would have been a better choice, it at least gives the illusion of being part of the product whilst giving more flexibility. I don't know what the answer is here, personally I don't have a problem with Access2Base being updated given what I said above, but I don't believe replacing non-extension code (be-it binary or script) with extension code is a good idea > >> does it set a precedent for binary extensions to be able to replace >> 'system' components (if that isn't already possible) etc. > Maybe I'm naive, but I'm in principle OK with that; an extension that > breaks something when doing that gets to pick up the pieces. > pity then the poor developers trying to debug some crazy (and unobvious) mixture of unsupported and supported (core) code not really realising what is what
Noel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
