[PATCH] EasyHack, fdo#46808, Adapt UNO services to new style, Parts 2 through 5
sbergman at redhat.com
Mon Apr 2 08:22:41 PDT 2012
On 03/28/2012 12:26 PM, Tor Lillqvist wrote:
>> MARKER: These services are not intended to be instantiated via their service names.
> How is it in general with service names, if one browses services.rdb
> (either of them), one doesn't have to look long to notice components
> that have identical service names (but different implementation
> names). What does this mean? That they are not supposed to be
> instantiated via service names but via implementation names? Sorry if
> this is a very fundamental question, but I guess I never fully have
> understood UNO...
Slide 8 ("Services of the Past") of
tried to explain that.
>> (And there's unfortunately lots of these, needlessly obscuring things in many ways.)
> Indeed. Is there any point at all in cluttering services.rdb (and
> other configuration files?) with these components if they aren't
> looked for from there at run-time anyway?
At least theoretically, applications could read that information at
runtime. (And it is really only .rdb files where this information is
preserved at runtime. For example, neither cppumaker nor javamaker
generate output for old-style services.)
More information about the LibreOffice