Hi,
On 30.07.2012 15:56, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
> On 7/30/12 2:36 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 30, 2012 at 10:08:05AM +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
[..]
>>
>> It doesn't matter what the implementation did internally, API users
>> don't care about implementation details. And it is a mistake to assume
>> that no API clients are using this API. In fact, it is more justified to
>> asume it is being used, as it's been documented in the SDK example:
>> main/odk/examples/DevelopersGuide/Drawing/TextDemo.java
>>
>> It also seems logical to assume that people read the documentation and
>> follow the examples
>>
>>> We did such
>>> changes in the past as well but always very seldom and carefully.
>>
>> But this change is *not* carefully done: the change is not tracked in
>> the IDL documentation; as API user, I would expect a @deprecated tag in
>> the IDL, not simple removal without further information (besides the
>> Developer's Guide being updated too
>>
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Drawings/General_Drawing_Properties)
>>
>>
>>> It doesn't help to keep wrong IDL types that never have worked and were
>>> not really used.
>>
>> This is a wrong assumption, see the example from the SDK quoted above.
>> You cannot mesure how many API users are using this API, but assuming
>> that some people actually read the examples and follow them seems more
>> reasonable.
>>
>
> I agree and apologize to not go deeper in this special case. Under this
> circumstance I would suggest that we revert the change and document it
> in IDL. The enum has no real effect and is obsolete. We can postpone
> this incompatible change for a 4.0 if we all agree that the change in
> general make sense.
I also apologize for not checking deeper, I thought it was a simple
cleanup/fix (see task). I think the simplest is to revert it for now,
document the missing adaptions (which I have ready now) in the task and
note in the API doc that all values not NONE do the same, thus not
really being used.
Is that okay..?
> Juergen
>
>
>>
>> Regards
>>
>
>
--
ALG
