Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?

On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote:
> On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote:
> > > I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to
> > > some basic level api for 3rd party developers?
> >     It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete
> > code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list;
>
> Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a
> question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear
> answer.  Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I
> speak it.
>
> Stephan Bergman talked about "Well-typed UNO", something that would
> involve incompatible changes to the UNO API.  I would like to know if
> LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this.  I am
> just talking about changes on API level not the underlying
> implementation.  That would be something that both projects would do
> independently.

First off, depends on what you mean with "UNO API."  One customary 
meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and 
offapi/ .idl files.  (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any 
incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the "API Changes" section 
at <http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes/>.)

Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface the 
URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc.  My hope 
is that my work on changing the type representation does not affect the 
former, only the latter (file formats etc.).  And, obviously, it will 
need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan.

That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that I'm 
going to well document all the changes to any specifications---just like 
I did for any other changes to UNO I did over the last ten years or so. 
 And, as always, any input is highly welcome.

Stephan