minutes of ESC call ...

[Lionel Elie Mamane]

On Thu, Jul 03, 2014 at 02:54:10PM +0200, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 06:17 PM, Michael Meeks wrote:
> >* allow upgrade of access2base (Lionel?)
> >     + access2base now included in LibreOffice 4.2 and later
> >     + technical structure: one Basic library (and that's it)
> >        + for other branches (other forks of OO.org & LibreOffice 4.1 and earlier),
> >          available as extension
> >     + competitive "disadvantage": users of other branches
> >       can have newer access2base faster (install extension)
> >     + not possible for LibO 4.2 & later because extension not allowed
> >       to override part of LibreOffice (only other extension)
> >        + policy exception for access2base can have new features within stable line?
> >           + I don't like that
> >        + allow extensions to override any part of LibreOffice?
> >           + no, significant resistance
> >        + demote access2base to bundled extension?
> >           + makes Acces2Base much less "official" in LibreOffice :-(
> >             (also more work)
> >           + problems with bundled extensions in the past (Michael)
> >        + allow extensions to override only access2base
> >           + Lionel's preferred option.
> >           + problem comes from extension using the same name etc. (Stephan)
> >                + mostly a problem with basic modules, not an expert there.
> >                + take Noel's advice from the list.
> >                + ok to add something for access2base, no general fix.
> >                     + always troubles with namespaces.
> >           + fairly sure this will work well tested it in the build.
> >                + change test of who can override what; done on the file-path
> >     + why not make it a bundled extension ? (Michael Stahl)
> >           + this is what it was designed for.
> >           + why did we move away from bundled extensions ? (Lionel)
> >                + problems with native code bundled extensions (Stephan)
> >                + problems with the upgrade scenarios.
> >                + shouldn't affect basic.
> >           + when was this included ? (Stephan)
> >                + was included in 4.2 (Lionel)
> >     + switching to bundling in 4.2 is a larger change
> >        + vs. a 1-line patch to say it can be overridden (Lionel)
> >        + happy with a 1-line change in 4.2 (Michael S)
> >           + concerned wrt. the future making it a bundled extension.
> >AI:       + merge 1-liner to 4.2 / 4.3 / master (Lionel)
> >AI:       + research / seek a saner solution for master (Stephan)

> One source of trouble for the access2base case is that shared-namespace
> names (like names of Basic libraries) were not replaced when turning the
> functionality into an integral LO-part.  This should definitely be addressed
> on master, one way or another.  The various interfaces by which extensions
> (as well as documents containing macros etc.) can plug into LO are generally
> ad-hoc and brittle enough that we should not tempt fate with neither
> careless nor intended-to-be-clever nameclashes.

I would rather not rename access2base within LibreOffice, as this is
an *API* / library. *All* code using it would have to be changed to
load the new library name.

However, my tests show that trying to mix access2base-as-extension and
access2base-in-core is, as far as I could determine, safe:

 - In 4.2.4 and earlier, the in-core version flatly wins, and the
   as-extension version cannot be enabled: it listed as "there was a
   problem enabling this extension".

 - In 4.2.5 and later, the as-extension version wins; enabling an
   as-extension version disables the in-code version. Disabling (or
   uninstalling) the installed as-extension reenables the in-code
   version (after a LibreOffice restart).

> The remaining question is whether LO should offer the access2base
> functionality in the form of a bundled extension or integral LO-part. The
> historic reasons that lead to the demise of bundled extensions should not be
> too relevant here (similarly to the case of bundled dictionaries, say).  One
> concern would be the update cycles of the access2base functionality vs. LO
> proper.  But a more severe concern probably would be whether concurrent
> installation of the extension and the integral LO-part could lead to
> confusion as described above.  This can only be answered by somebody
> familiar with the actual access2base functionality.  If such confusion is to
> be expected, my recommendation would be to go with a bundled extension on
> master.

<shrug> I'm not worried about "confusion", since it is rather easy to
check which one is active.

So, now that Stephan has validated that the past problems with bundled
extensions do not apply anymore / not to access2base, I don't veto
anymore to change access2base to bundled extension in *master*. The
only remaining sort-of reason not to do is political.

-- 
Lionel