[tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

[Andre Fischer]

On 06.03.2013 15:25, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
>> On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
>>> On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:
>>>> I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
>>>> some basic level api for 3rd party developers?
>>>     It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
>>> code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;
>>
>> Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a
>> question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear
>> answer.  Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I
>> speak it.
>>
>> Stephan Bergman talked about "Well-typed UNO", something that would
>> involve incompatible changes to the UNO API.  I would like to know if
>> LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am
>> just talking about changes on API level not the underlying
>> implementation.  That would be something that both projects would do
>> independently.
>
> First off, depends on what you mean with "UNO API."  One customary 
> meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and 
> offapi/ .idl files.  (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any 
> incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the "API Changes" 
> section at 
> <http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes/>.)
>
> Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface 
> the URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc.  
> My hope is that my work on changing the type representation does not 
> affect the former, only the latter (file formats etc.).  And, 
> obviously, it will need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan.

By "UNO API" I mean everything that affects a packaged extension, that 
is basically your option B.  So if I understand you correctly that an 
extension developer just has to recompile (for a C++ extension) the 
source code, repackage the extension and is done (with respect to your 
changes).  That sounds good.

>
> That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that 
> I'm going to well document all the changes to any 
> specifications---just like I did for any other changes to UNO I did 
> over the last ten years or so.  And, as always, any input is highly 
> welcome.

Great. Thanks.
Do you have a pointer to the relevant documentation?

-Andre

>
> Stephan