On 02/22/2015 05:42 PM, julien2412 [via Document Foundation Mail Archive] wrote: > Noticing by chance > <a href="http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/?qt=range&q=a94390d20c50125e25e29431ca15ca2ca6683d17" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external">http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/log/?qt=range&q=a94390d20c50125e25e29431ca15ca2ca6683d17</a>, > I noticed with Opengrok that there were some similar cases, see > <a href="http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/search?q=%22singleton+name%22&project=core&defs=&refs=&path=&hist=" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external">http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/search?q=%22singleton+name%22&project=core&defs=&refs=&path=&hist=</a> > eg: > <a href="http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/framework/util/fwk.component#33" target="_top" rel="nofollow" link="external">http://opengrok.libreoffice.org/xref/core/framework/util/fwk.component#33</a> > > Should we clean these too or we can't generalize this rule? No, a94390d20c50125e25e29431ca15ca2ca6683d17 is about cases where the name of a UNOIDL singleton (cf. the .idl files in offapi) is erroneously also used for a service declaration in a .component file. In general, in implementation described in a .component file can list an arbitrary number of services and singletons. <hr align="left" width="300" /> View this message in context: <a href="http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Singleton-is-never-a-service-tp4141020p4141072.html">Re: Singleton is never a service?</a> Sent from the <a href="http://nabble.documentfoundation.org/Dev-f1639786.html">Dev mailing list archive</a> at Nabble.com.