INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
7 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

Dan Corneanu
Hi,
what is the meaning of the
INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()
function? (from tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx)

Should this return true if the instance it is called on represents a
hierarchical URI? For the
"cmis://http:%2F%2Fadmin:[hidden email]:8080%2Falfresco%2Fcmis
/User%20Homes/Foo.txt" URI, it returns false. Is this OK ?

Best regards,
Dan.

P.S.
I am debuging the upstream version of OpenOffice 3.2.0
--
Dan Corneanu
Sava Technologies SRL
Eroilor de la Tisa nr. 33
300553 Timisoara
Romania

Phone: +40 256 201269, +40 356 101412
Mobile: +40 721 723604
E-mail: [hidden email]
http://www.savatech.ro

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

Stephan Bergmann-2
On 07/09/10 15:18, Dan Corneanu wrote:

> Hi,
> what is the meaning of the
> INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()
> function? (from tools/source/fsys/urlobj.cxx)
>
> Should this return true if the instance it is called on represents a
> hierarchical URI? For the
> "cmis://http:%2F%2Fadmin:[hidden email]:8080%2Falfresco%2Fcmis
> /User%20Homes/Foo.txt" URI, it returns false. Is this OK ?
>
> Best regards,
> Dan.
>
> P.S.
> I am debuging the upstream version of OpenOffice 3.2.0

This got changed with
<http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsg01>
(unfortunately, by a Hamburg internal issue), integrated in DEV300_m78
towards OOo 3.3.0.

Before that change, INetURLObject treated all unknown/generic URI
schemes (INET_PROT_GENERIC) as non-hierarchical, now it treats them as
hierarchical.

-Stephan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

Dan Corneanu
 On 09.07.2010 16:43, Stephan Bergmann wrote:

> This got changed with
> <http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsg01>
> (unfortunately, by a Hamburg internal issue), integrated in DEV300_m78
> towards OOo 3.3.0.
>
> Before that change, INetURLObject treated all unknown/generic URI
> schemes (INET_PROT_GENERIC) as non-hierarchical, now it treats them as
> hierarchical.
>
> -Stephan
Please forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that I can grab
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/ to build it with the
aforementioned change ? or should I just grab the *DEV300_m78*
</re/DEV300_next/rev/e4a9ffc6a905> tag and build from there ?

Is http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/ stable?

Best regards,
Dan.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

stephan.bergmann
On 07/19/10 09:48, Dan Corneanu wrote:

>   On 09.07.2010 16:43, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>> This got changed with
>> <http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fsg01>
>> (unfortunately, by a Hamburg internal issue), integrated in DEV300_m78
>> towards OOo 3.3.0.
>>
>> Before that change, INetURLObject treated all unknown/generic URI
>> schemes (INET_PROT_GENERIC) as non-hierarchical, now it treats them as
>> hierarchical.
>>
>> -Stephan
> Please forgive my ignorance, but does this mean that I can grab
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/ to build it with the
> aforementioned change ? or should I just grab the *DEV300_m78*
> </re/DEV300_next/rev/e4a9ffc6a905>  tag and build from there ?
>
> Is http://hg.services.openoffice.org/OOO330/ stable?

OOO330 got spawned off DEV300_m84, so it contains all the changesets
from DEV300_m78, in particular.  OOO330 (open for stopper issues towards
OOo 3.3.0) should be more stable than DEV300 (open for general
development towards OOo 3.4).  However, if you want to get your changes
integrated into OOo 3.4 (and it is too late to get them integrated into
3.3 by now), I would nevertheless suggest you develop on DEV300
(DEV300_m84 being the most recent milestone there).

-Stephan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

Dan Corneanu
 On 19.07.2010 11:09, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> OOO330 got spawned off DEV300_m84, so it contains all the changesets
> from DEV300_m78, in particular.  OOO330 (open for stopper issues
> towards OOo 3.3.0) should be more stable than DEV300 (open for general
> development towards OOo 3.4).  However, if you want to get your
> changes integrated into OOo 3.4 (and it is too late to get them
> integrated into 3.3 by now), I would nevertheless suggest you develop
> on DEV300 (DEV300_m84 being the most recent milestone there).
>
> -Stephan
Hi,
my extension is written in Java so I would rather prefer not to have to
add a patch to OpenOffice for it to work. The extension implements a
content provider for UCB. I find the current static table in the
INetURLObject code rather inappropriate, don't you think? Why is a
proper RFC 2396 implementation not used? or some kind of a mechanism
provided, for an UCP implementation to be able to add some more records
to that table describing the new URI scheme used by the new provider?

Best regards,
Dan.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

Stephan Bergmann-2
On 07/22/10 17:02, Dan Corneanu wrote:
> my extension is written in Java so I would rather prefer not to have to
> add a patch to OpenOffice for it to work. The extension implements a
> content provider for UCB. I find the current static table in the
> INetURLObject code rather inappropriate, don't you think? Why is a
> proper RFC 2396 implementation not used? or some kind of a mechanism
> provided, for an UCP implementation to be able to add some more records
> to that table describing the new URI scheme used by the new provider?

But you don't need any changes to (DEV300_m78 or later) INetURLObject to
make your extension work, or what am I missing?

That INetURLObject is the way it is is for historical reasons.  :)
Ideally, it should vanish from OOo, the replacement being the
com.sun.star.uri UNO API.  But, you know, change is slow...

-Stephan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: INetURLObject::checkHierarchical()

Dan Corneanu
 On 23.07.2010 10:56, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
> But you don't need any changes to (DEV300_m78 or later) INetURLObject
> to make your extension work, or what am I missing?
>
You are right here but still, treating all INET_PROT_GENERIC as
hierarchical is not the best option.

> That INetURLObject is the way it is is for historical reasons.  :)
> Ideally, it should vanish from OOo, the replacement being the
> com.sun.star.uri UNO API.  But, you know, change is slow...
>
> -Stephan
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
> For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [hidden email]
For additional commands, e-mail: [hidden email]