incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: How to rebuild types.rdb ?
Date Wed, 17 Aug 2011 06:43:48 GMT
Hi,

sorry for the late response but i am currently not in HH until Sunday and
can not frequently check my emails

On Tue, Aug 16, 2011 at 9:39 AM, Mathias Bauer <Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net>wrote:

> On 16.08.2011 09:27, eric b wrote:
>
> > Does this method to allow "OpenOffice.org growing" only ?  If we
> > systematicaly compare to an existing but fixed blob, we have no way
> > to remove useless/no longer needed services ? (but maybe I
> > misunderstood )
>
> We can do with that reference file whatever we want, until now we had
> the requirement to refrain from incompatible API changes. Some time ago
> we decided that incompatible API changes should be allowed for future
> major releases of OOo, so the reference rdb usually would become the one
> of the last major release. There also is an exception list with "allowed
> incompatible changes", e.g. removal of superfluous (unused) types. This
> list usually was maintained by the API project lead, Jürgen Schmidt.
>

well, we decided to allow incompatible changes but we should of course be
careful and should discuss such changes before. I will search the initial
proposal how to handle such changes when i am back in HH.

The existing reference rdb is updated after every new official release from
me and further manual changes are documented in the history file with some
comments and relating bug ids


>
> > With a cold start, occurs a big and costly I/O read write process.
> > Searching what seems to cause that, it appears the .rdb files are
> > good candidates. I can be plain wrong, but I think there are a lot of
> > services embedded in the interface, who probably could be loaded ...
> > say somethingl like on demand or at least differently, no ?
>
> Sorry, I don't understand. Are you referring the cold start of the
> OpenOffice.org application? That would be a completely unrelated
> discussion. IIRC Stephan Bergmann and/or Matthias Hütsch have worked on
> performance improvements regarding types.rdb in the OOo 3.2 release time
> frame.
>
> >> The reference file must not be recreated as it belongs to an older
> >> version that the current source files are compared against.
> >>
> >
> > Thinking rwice I start to see better, and I can imagine people (say
> > companies providing services around OOo) playing with IDL files and
> > introducing some issues, indeed.
>

it's simply the way how we define interfaces between different components
and can use this interface from different (by UNO supported languages). For
example the extensions make use of well defined interfaces (defined in IDL
and implemented somewhere in the office) to communicate with the office. Or
extensions can implement specific interfaces on their own (e.g.
spellchecker) and can replace an existing impl or can extend a list of
implemenatations. Think about filters, spellchcker, smart tags, grammar
checker and many more. But it is also possible to define completely new
interfaces and implement in an extenssion and make use of this stuff from
other extensions or macros. A comfortable way to implement some busness or
company logic ...

If you have more concrete questions please ask or we can IRC next week also.

Juergen


> >
> > In fact I never played too much with idl files (seems to be a simple
> > interface, that UNO will handle, isn't it ? ), excepted when we added
> > code for Impress annotation mode, and that's probably the reason why
> > I ask stupid questions in this domain I don't know well :-)
>
> Your questions weren't stupid at all. :-)
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message