On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Hagar Delest <hagar.del...@laposte.net> wrote: > You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the > problem of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it > affects only the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the > dictionaries, I guess that it makes a good deal of them still. > > The problem has been raised by Bernard Marcelly here: > http://www.mail-archive.com/api@openoffice.apache.org/msg00107.html > But as said by Ariel, this is not an API change (so shouldn't the discussion > on the API list be dropped and discussed here instead?): > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg04042.html > > Rob has opened a wiki page related but without this topic (as for now): > http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg03976.html >
I added a section to the existing AOO 4.0 release notes page on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes I didn't add any content to that section. > Basically (my understanding, don't hesitate to correct me): > - For a [minor] issue in the file structure, all the current extensions with > a toolbar MUST be updated > - Updated and new extensions won't be compatible with former versions of > AOO/OOo > For all the details, refer to the link given above. > > Consequences: > - Users upgrading to 4.x will lose such extensions (certainly with no > warning since very few users read the release notes) > - Both versions of each extension will have to be maintained as long as > pre-4.0 versions are still in use > > So, are all the committers aware of this change and do they all agree about > such a major change? > My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no doubt in the user's mind, even if they do not read the release notes, that the extensions are gone. Then, when extensions are installed in the fresh AOO 4.0 system, users will need to install extensions that are compatible with AOO 4.0. > I know that there is a topic on the API list (link given above) but I'm not > sure it has the same audience as the dev list (number of subscribers I > mean). Since this is a major change, I think it deserves a discussion on the > dev mailing list. > I know that if this change is implemented, the forums will be quickly > flooded with users disappointed to have lost their extensions. So this is > the topic I will point to in order to explain the dev community rationale > about that. > Again, my impression is that users will lose their extensions and need to reinstall them, even if we do not make any API changes. > I know that code change is sometimes required. But can we take into account > the end-user impact here? There may be some transition solution with a > deprecated method that would be still valid for some time (let's say until > version 5.x for example) with a massive communication to all the accounts > having uploaded an extension? > I think a "clean break" with the past profile helps us avoid the current generation of crash issues. We get to start clean rather than deal with the many upgrade paths: AOO 3.4.1 -> AOO 4.0 AOO 3.4.9 -> AOO 4.0 OOo 3.3.0 -> AOO 4.0 OOo 3.2.1 -> AOO 4.0 OOo 3.2.0 -> AOO 4.0 etc. So the reduction in complexity should improve the user experience, once they reinstall their extensions. The other impact, as you noted, is on the extension author. I think for that we need clear communications, with plenty of time for them to adapt, plus early availability of AOO 4.0 code for them to test with. Unlike end users, developers know that API's change, and even if they did not change they should know that they need to retest with major new versions. So we should have their attention with the 4.0 release. I don't have an opinion on changing this for 4.x versus 5.x. -Rob > Hagar
