Re: RFC removing the XPrimitive2D (and related) UNO classes

Hi,

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 1:38 PM Thorsten Behrens <thb@libreoffice.org>
wrote:

> Noel Grandin wrote:
> > It seems to me that in quite a few places we are using UNO as a
> > means of papering over circular dependencies.
> Would call that papering over - ain't that quite standard-issue
> dependency-inversion?

I'd call it a flaw in the dependency hierarchy, which means something is
located at a wrong place. I know that this can be a "standard-issue" but
mostly because a lot of times fixing the hierarchy is a lot of work and
moving things around, but this doesn't mean breaking a circular dependency
in such a way should be taken lightly or is a good thing.

As for UNO - to me UNO API is for making the functionality available to
extensions, macros, tests. If we use UNO just to circumvent a circular
dependency, how is that anything but a misuse of UNO API? If we extend the
UNO API from the point were it is not required for extension development,
it is prone to be used for things that were never meant to be used
externally and also YAGNI.


> Cheers,
>
> -- Thorsten

Best regards, Tomaž