On 16/12/2009 11:15, Matthias B. wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
>
>> yes, i removed the XTextField interface at the writer's SwXTextPortion
>
> Could you give a list of all interfaces that were removed (at least
> XTextContent and XTextField) so that we can check
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:00 PM, Michael Stahl wrote:
> yes, i removed the XTextField interface at the writer's SwXTextPortion
Could you give a list of all interfaces that were removed (at least
XTextContent and XTextField) so that we can check our code.
Matthias
--
Daniel B. wrote:
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Juergen Schmidt
wrote:
Daniel B. wrote:
Since our (and potentially a lot of other) extension breaks with this
change this is a major issue that prevents us from rolling out OOo
3.2. Reverting the change until OOo 4.0 would give us enough t
Hi,
On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 1:48 PM, Juergen Schmidt
wrote:
> Daniel B. wrote:
>> Since our (and potentially a lot of other) extension breaks with this
>> change this is a major issue that prevents us from rolling out OOo
>> 3.2. Reverting the change until OOo 4.0 would give us enough time to
>>
Daniel B. wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Juergen Schmidt
wrote:
Hi,
if we can all agree i would suggest that we don't change the code back.
The correct way will work with older versions of OOo as well and the code
have to be changed in the near future anyway.
What's your opinio
Hi,
On Thu, Nov 26, 2009 at 6:46 PM, Juergen Schmidt
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> if we can all agree i would suggest that we don't change the code back.
>
> The correct way will work with older versions of OOo as well and the code
> have to be changed in the near future anyway.
>
> What's your opinion? I ca
Hi,
if we can all agree i would suggest that we don't change the code back.
The correct way will work with older versions of OOo as well and the
code have to be changed in the near future anyway.
What's your opinion? I can also live with Michaels suggestion to
implement this interface until
On 26/11/2009 16:58, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote:
> Hello Jürgen, *
>
> On Thursday 26 November 2009, 12:36, Juergen Schmidt wrote:
>> mmh, it seems that we have a classical problem where you have
>> implemented a macro based on a not documented implementation detail. But
>> the implementation get
