Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla – Issue 75359
NbcInsertObject etc. deserves cleanup
Last modified: 2013-07-29 17:55:23 UTC
See issue 75331 - svdpage.hxx and fmpage.hxx contain some unneeded redefinitions; in sixtyfour11 I've changed them to 'using blah::ugh;', but they could probably be removed for good - ideally when sixtyfour11 is integrated.
Armin, please take care of this patch accordingly.
AW: Since sixtyfour11 is not integrated yet and the CWS is not hosted on a machine i can access, and no patch data is added to this task, i can say nothing to this patch right now.
AW: Evaluating...
AW; OOps, status change was lost ?!?
AW: Still waiting for sixtyfour11 to be integrated, no action possible before that. Making dependent on one of the tasks from that CWS...
AW: I resynced to m211 since there sixtyfour11 is integrated. Grepping for 'using blah::ugh;' (or single parts of the string) shows no hits in svx. AW->Kendy: I do not know what to do here. Mentioned string not found, no attachment for a patch, no deeper information found looking at #i75331#. If there is nothing to do anymore, be informed that this resync consumed half a day for nothing, then. If there is something to do, please describe.
@aw: see <http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=75331#desc5>
AW->sb: I looked there (as mentioned). There is no 'NbcInsertObject' anymore in fmpage.hxx in the master, just a 'using SdrPage::NbcInsertObject'. Please verify if there is anything to do for this task or not. I am not the submitter of this task and can only guess if i looked for everything necessary, not decide that.
@aw: As I (tried to?) say at <http://www.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=75331#desc5> ff, the question is whether or not those "using SdrPage::NbcInsertObject;" etc. are needed at all, or should rather be removed completely.
AW->sb: I could not interpret that from #i75331#. Anyways, it should be described here in the patch. Here is how a patch works IMHO: A patch describes a concrete change by supplying a patch file which relies on stuff available in the master. The patch receiver then checks if this is okay or not and adds it to one of his next CWSes. In this case i have no concrete change description. Please add a patch file including that. Else, like in this case, we all loose too much time guessing.
@aw: Come on, what is your problem? I added you to issue 75331 when I started discussion there, so you could have followed on. Why this issue 75359 is marked PATCH I have no idea---probably kendy made a simple mistake when filing it.
I apologize for setting the issue to PATCH, it should have been ENHANCEMENT from the very first moment. The problem with the code is that it defines much more methods than needed. I am not the original author so I do not have the courage to do the cleanup myself ;-) - would be great if you could do that; dead code lying around is not a good thing. Thank you in advance!
AW->kendy: I agree, seems to have no patch status at all. So, who is the original author? It's the same for me as for You, what should be removed or even cheched for removal? Just 'NbcInsertObject' or more? Of course there are a lot of methods in svx which just call their parent implementation, and we remove them when we see them or at code reworks. Reading #i75331# the third time, only 'NbcInsertObject' is directly mentioned, but there is also text about 'by the method removals in FmFormPage..." which looks like more methods are involved. Maybe it looks nitpicking (what i do not want to do) but i cannot 'guess' what to do here and just do 'some' cleanups which i find by looking at svx. AW->sb: It's not a problem, i just have no clear definition what to do here, see above. What would You do with a patch without attachment and no concrete description what to do? Please try to see my point of view, i just try to help and do the right thing.
AW: If it's only about NbcInsertObject, i checked it. I see no reason for 'using SdrPage::NbcInsertObject' in FmFormPage class definition since there is only one function prototype (usage is not ambigious) and only one flat derivation from SdrPage If it's about the SUPD (AFAIK the build ID) definition in svdpage.hxx, that's old stuff and far above 356 nowadays. It could be probably removed, so below 356 there would not be any amiguity. Someone from ReleaseEngineering has to decide that no version below 356 needs to be built anymore (e.g. bug fixing in StarOffice 5.2 or something like that?). For NbcRemoveObject, NbcReplaceObject and ReplaceObject there is no reason for the using definition in FmFormPage class definition. HTH.