Re: Vendors Name via UNO API / Basic Macros

On 26/11/2013 17:42, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 02:36:41PM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote:
> > On 26/11/2013 13:56, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> > > On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 08:34:04PM +0100, Jan Holesovsky wrote:
> > > > Thomas Krumbein píše v Pá 15. 11. 2013 v 15:43 +0100:
> > > > > > > Well, this change was a small technical thing - but with a very big
> > > > > > > influence on typical market applications. Every custom macro application
> > > > > > > with dialogs or forms for user interfaces is influenced if dialogs/forms
> > > > > > > using Date/time fields.
> > > > > > Have you filed a bugreport, please?  A minimal example of the macro that
> > > > > > fails would be most appreciated.
> > > > > Well - it´s not a bug, because you mentioned the change in release-notes
> > > > > of version 4.1.
> > > > There are many ways how to make the problem less annoying in Basic
> > > > ;-) - we control the Basic implementation, so can work around many
> > > > things, and if we are lucky, this will be one of them. I am sure
> > > > we'd try to do that before the release with the incompatible change
> > > > if we knew early.
> > > Well, I considered doing some "magic" that when the property is
> > > written,
> > why not a extra property , "date" = isodate as it was (all old code
> > can run it)
> >                                             "cdate" = new way
> That's essentially a variant of "roll back the change".
>
> 1) This requires an incompatible change again; 4.2 would be
>     incompatible with 4.1.
is suppose that there is not a lot off API-basic code around for 4.2 :-)
> 2) Applied to Time, it leaves the problem of round-tripping.
>
> 3) If we set DataFieldProperty to the name of the new
>     (pseudo?)property (UnoDate? DateAsUNO? StructDate?), the other
>     problems I'm thinking about should go OK, except that indirect
>     access through DataFieldProperty will still be incompatible, but
>     that should be minor?
Go for it, then we can go for 4.1.
If not: then please let it know,  we can start changing the code using a 
conversion

Greetz

Fernand
>