Re: Access2Base - New release

On 19/05/14 14:59, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 11:06:46AM +0100, Noel Power wrote:
[...]
> Access2Base is considered a part of the core isn't it? it isn't
> shipped as an extention, it is shipped as part of the product, (...)
> Access2Base is either part of the product or it's not.
> I don't think this was a very conscious decision. Access2Base started
> its life as an extension that got integrated into LibreOffice, but is
> still available as an extension for other branches / forks of the
> code. It got shipped as part of the product since that was easier to
> set up and LibreOffice was (my perception) moving away from bundled
> extensions anyway.
IMHO moving away == moving functionality into the core => stable api
with the same rules as the rest of the code
> > it seems ato me that you are trying to get around the rules of no-new
> > features etc. by exploiting the extension mechanism.
> No, extensions are *very* *much* *designed* to allow addition of new
> features to LibreOffice!
sure extensions are very much designed to add new functionality (also
independantly updateable from thing (libreoffice) they extend ) they are
not designed to replace in an uncontrolled way core functionality, that
leads to a maintenance (&security??) nightmare scenarios
[...]
> > But.... in anycase although Access2Base is part of the core, part of
> > the product etc. it is afaik completely selfcontained (and
> > essentially a separately maintained subsystem) in this case I think
> > there is a good argument to bend the rules regarding updating the
> > version of Access2Base shipped, we already do that occasionly I
> > think?
> Well, that means we ship a changing API into our stable line (I mean
> patchlevel updates). I'm not comfortable with this. I'd be far much
> comfortable if people that wanted the changed API installed it
> explicitly as an extension.
[...]
then Access2Base should be an extension, they are designed with that in
mind, a bundled extension would have been a better choice, it at least
gives the illusion of being part of the product whilst giving more
flexibility. I don't know what the answer is here, personally I don't
have a problem with Access2Base being updated given what I said above,
but I don't believe replacing non-extension code (be-it binary or
script) with extension code is a good idea
> > does it set a precedent for binary extensions to be able to replace
> > 'system' components (if that isn't already possible) etc.
> Maybe I'm naive, but I'm in principle OK with that; an extension that
> breaks something when doing that gets to pick up the pieces.
pity then the poor developers trying to debug some crazy (and unobvious)
mixture of unsupported and supported (core) code not really realising
what is what

Noel