Re: [Libreoffice] [REVIEW-3-5-0] Revert of UNO interface publishing

On Fri, Jan 27, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Stephan Bergmann <sbergman@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 01/27/2012 09:46 AM, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
> > in the original commit by thorsten 9and not 'fixed by Stephan's)
> > --- a/offapi/com/sun/star/drawing/framework/ConfigurationChangeEvent.idl
> > +++ b/offapi/com/sun/star/drawing/framework/ConfigurationChangeEvent.idl
> > @@ -35,8 +35,9 @@ module com { module sun { module star { module uno {
> > interface XInterface; }; };
> > module com { module sun { module star { module drawing { module framework
> > {
> > -published interface XConfiguration;
> > -published interface XResourceId;
> > +interface XConfiguration;
> > +interface XConfigurationController;
> > +interface XResourceId;
> >
> > that sound weird... and is more than unpublishing
>
>
> Kai's original commit removed the unused forward declaration for
> XConfigurationController, which is harmless if brought back in.
>
>
> > diff --git a/offapi/com/sun/star/rendering/StrokeAttributes.idl
> > b/offapi/com/sun/star/rendering/StrokeAttributes.idl
> > index 8bb12d8..5393872 100644
> > --- a/offapi/com/sun/star/rendering/StrokeAttributes.idl
> > +++ b/offapi/com/sun/star/rendering/StrokeAttributes.idl
> > @@ -28,6 +28,14 @@
> > #ifndef __com_sun_star_rendering_StrokeAttributes_idl__
> > #define __com_sun_star_rendering_StrokeAttributes_idl__
> > +#ifndef __com_sun_star_rendering_PathCapType_idl__
> > +#include<com/sun/star/rendering/PathCapType.idl>
> > +#endif
> > +#ifndef __com_sun_star_rendering_PathJoinType_idl__
> > +#include<com/sun/star/rendering/PathJoinType.idl>
> > +#endif
> > +
> > +
> >
> > that does not look right either
>
>
> Kai's original commit removed the unused inclusion of PathCapType and
> PathJoinType, which are harmless if brought back in.
>
> I'm not happy with this, either, but all the additional changes brought in
> with Thorsten's commits appeared to me to be minuscule and harmless, so I
> would not bother to clean them up further, at least not on -3-5-0.

Well since we _are_ going to put some change, we might as well put as
least of change as possible...
and since there is already 2 patches, it would make sens to combine
these 2 patches anyway to keep it clean... so a few more fixup won't
hurt...

if there is another ACK, I will merge the 2 proposed patches and
revert the 2 chunk above and push that to 3-5-0 as a single commit

Norbert