Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index



I stand under correction, but I believe the correct answer is that ideally, you need to support 
**both**.

I think the second one is the newer one, and Windows provides some support for interfacing 
applications using the first
one with applications using the second one.
Which is why you see some of the formats, but not all of them, when you use the second API.

Ideally, I think LO needs to get a list from both API's and eliminate duplicates.

Of course, you could always fire up Excel under a Windows debugger, put breakpoints on all of those 
API entry points,
and see what it does :-)

-- Noel Grandin


Kohei Yoshida wrote:
Hi fellow hackers,

While investigating this bug

https://bugs.freedesktop.org/show_bug.cgi?id=33100

which involves Windows' clipboard handling, I've come to the realization
that, there are two ways to communicate with the clipboard on Windows.

One is to use the regular clipboard API

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms648709%
28v=vs.85%29.aspx

which allows you to open, close, query the available formats, and fetch
the raw clipboard data stream for a requested format.

The other way is to obtain the IDataObject instance from the clipboard,
and fetch the clipboard data stream from that object.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms688421%
28v=vs.85%29.aspx

First of all, I don't quite understand why two different ways, and what
the differences are between the two.

Our current clipboard implementation in dtrans uses the
IDataObject-based approach.

Now, as I discovered while investigating the bug, using the IDataObject
method does not necessarily return all available clipboard formats,
whereas using the regular clipboard API does.  I was thinking naively
about perhaps replacing our current IDataObject-based approach with the
clipboard API based one, but the whole data transfer code does more than
just handling the clipboard, so I don't really know how feasible
replacing it would be...

Does anyone have a better grasp on why we do it the way we do?

Feedback and suggestions very much appreciated.  Also, if anyone wants
to grab Bug 33100, s/he will be more than welcome. :-)

Thanks,

Kohei 


Disclaimer: http://www.peralex.com/disclaimer.html



Context


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.