On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 11:09:03AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote: > On 11/08/2013 10:09 AM, Lionel Elie Mamane wrote: > >On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 08:57:31AM +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>> Would it not be better here to change >>> OShape::getSupportedServiceNames instead, to also report >>> m_sServiceName? >> On the face of it, it sounds reasonable. >> So we are making getSupportedServiceNames and supportsService >> compatible, but we are making getSupportedServiceNames incompatible >> with getSupportedServiceNames_Static. > I think it is better here to strive for consistency between the > implementation object's supportsService and getSupportedServiceNames > methods, than to strive for consistency between the factory and > implementation object's getSupportedServiceNames methods OK, done. -- Lionel _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
