Access2Base - New release

Lionel Elie Mamane lionel at
Fri May 16 09:39:08 PDT 2014

On Fri, May 16, 2014 at 11:30:15AM +0200, Jean-Pierre Ledure wrote:
> On 15/05/2014 12:30, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:

>> one might hope that when loading the library, one source is
>> always preferred over the other.

> After a test the behaviour of LibreOffice is found sane: when installing an
> extension with the same name as a pre-installed one, the extension gets
> INSTALLED but cannot be ENABLED.
> So the pre-existing one keeps the precedence.

I took a deeper look at it; actually, the problem is different. A
user-installed extension *is* allowed to override a Basic script (or
dialog) library from a *bundled* *extension*, or from a *system*
(installed as "for all users") extension. *But* not to override a
script (or dialog) library that forms an integral part of
LibreOffice. And access2base is (in LibreOffice 4.2) not a bundled
extension, but a "standard" part of LibreOffice.

The code that enforces that is:

desktop/source/deployment/registry/script/dp_script.cxx around line 350:

            if (sOriginalUrl.match("$UNO_USER_PACKAGES_CACHE")
                || sOriginalUrl.match("$UNO_SHARED_PACKAGES_CACHE")
                || sOriginalUrl.match("$BUNDLED_EXTENSIONS"))
                bCanAdd = true;
                bCanAdd = false;

However, if I direct the code flow into the if branch anyway with gdb,
then everything goes well, the built-in access2base is disabled and
the one from the user-installed extension takes over.

So, the question is "why does this code enforce this condition, and
can we change it"? Can we just remove the condition altogether, or
should we add this case:

                || sOriginalUrl.match("$(INST)")

Noel? Uray? You are our Basic "FindTheExpert"s. What's your opinion on


More information about the LibreOffice mailing list