Access2Base - New release

[Noel Power]

On 19/05/14 14:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
[...]
> Access2Base is considered a part of the core isn't it? it isn't
> shipped as an extention, it is shipped as part of the product, (...)
> Access2Base is either part of the product or it's not.
> I don't think this was a very conscious decision. Access2Base started
> its life as an extension that got integrated into LibreOffice, but is
> still available as an extension for other branches / forks of the
> code. It got shipped as part of the product since that was easier to
> set up and LibreOffice was (my perception) moving away from bundled
> extensions anyway.
IMHO moving away == moving functionality into the core => stable api
with the same rules as the rest of the code
>
>> it seems ato me that you are trying to get around the rules of no-new
>> features etc. by exploiting the extension mechanism.
> No, extensions are *very* *much* *designed* to allow addition of new
> features to LibreOffice!
sure extensions are very much designed to add new functionality (also
independantly updateable from thing (libreoffice) they extend ) they are
not designed to replace in an uncontrolled way core functionality, that
leads to a maintenance (&security??) nightmare scenarios
[...]
>> But.... in anycase although Access2Base is part of the core, part of
>> the product etc. it is afaik completely selfcontained (and
>> essentially a separately maintained subsystem) in this case I think
>> there is a good argument to bend the rules regarding updating the
>> version of Access2Base shipped, we already do that occasionly I
>> think?
> Well, that means we ship a changing API into our stable line (I mean
> patchlevel updates). I'm not comfortable with this. I'd be far much
> comfortable if people that wanted the changed API installed it
> explicitly as an extension.
[...]
then Access2Base should be an extension, they are designed with that in
mind, a bundled extension would have been a better choice, it at least
gives the illusion of being part of the product whilst giving more
flexibility. I don't know what the answer is here, personally I don't
have a problem with Access2Base being updated given what I said above,
but I don't believe replacing non-extension code (be-it binary or
script) with extension code is a good idea
>
>> does it set a precedent for binary extensions to be able to replace
>> 'system' components (if that isn't already possible) etc.
> Maybe I'm naive, but I'm in principle OK with that; an extension that
> breaks something when doing that gets to pick up the pieces.
>
pity then the poor developers trying to debug some crazy (and unobvious)
mixture of unsupported and supported (core) code not really realising
what is what

Noel