Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
> IRC, you already made another exception in another thread where we
> discussed that, namely you agreed that adding non-optional properties to
> published services should be allowed.> Using your arguments from above, I
> could say that this shoul
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
> Hi Mathias,
>
>>> Which really also might turn out as "never" - the unlikeliness of
>>> the big-bang-change to happen was already pointed out (since when
>>> are we talking about awt redesign? I personally think it's >8 years
>>> now).
>>
>> If
Hi Mathias,
>> Which really also might turn out as "never" - the unlikeliness of
>> the big-bang-change to happen was already pointed out (since when
>> are we talking about awt redesign? I personally think it's >8 years
>> now).
>
> If it doesn't happen, the pain to have them obviously is not bi
Hi Mathias,
>> Is there a good reason to not do the changes incrementally?
> Yes, there is a very good reason. Every incompatible change causes pain,
> no matter how many individual changes it contains.
Indeed.
Changing XView to contain that additional method creates pain now.
Creating an XVi
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
> So, if this turns out to be too much effort (means I simply do not
> have/get the time for this), then I would still argue for a lot of small
> steps which actually happen, than a little big step which never happens
> at all. XView::getZoom is a
Juergen Schmidt wrote:
>> The given XView interface is effectively *only* implemented in the
>> toolkit module, and chances that it's implemented outside the OOo code
>> base are rather low (since all the code around it does not really allow
>> for pure UNO components outside the OOo code, but tha
Frank Schönheit - Sun Microsystems Germany wrote:
> Is there a good reason to not do the changes incrementally?
Yes, there is a very good reason. Every incompatible change causes pain,
no matter how many individual changes it contains. So putting as much
changes together as possible into one cha
Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Hi Malte,
>
> you wrote:
>> I think it's better to break AWT API compatibility once, instead of many
>> times in many releases.
>>
> Which really also might turn out as "never" - the unlikeliness of
> the big-bang-change to happen was already pointed out (since when
> a
Hi Philipp,
On 07/06/09 11:25, Vil wrote:
Hi,
I obviously stumbled across the new locking mechanism (which means I failed
at implementing it under 3.0 in the first place ;-))
My intention is to move a open document from one location to a new one.
What are the steps I have to make, in order to
Hi,
I obviously stumbled across the new locking mechanism (which means I failed
at implementing it under 3.0 in the first place ;-))
My intention is to move a open document from one location to a new one.
What are the steps I have to make, in order to assure that there are no
references to the o
10 matches
Mail list logo
