Thanks for bugreport
Please, tell about this to authors these extensions. IMHO they will solve this problem more quickly.

I *am* the author of the extension :-) I think the need to restart LO is a limitation of LO, so it should handle the usability issues that this limitation causes.

Thanks for additional information.
Please, provide link to this extension or attach it. This needed for testing purposes.

The extension can be downloaded from http://www.languagetool.org/download/LanguageTool-stable.oxt?1.8

Thanks for link
in 3.6.b1 on Fedora 64 bit reproduced that no message about restarting appears
But it works without restarting correctly.
May be needing for restarting is Windows-only problem?

Thanks for testing - but the "LanguageTool" entry in the Tools menu (or whatever it's called in the English version) did not appear without restart, did it?

When I have opened Writer and added this extension, "LanguageTool" entry not appeared. But after File->Open and opening any document this items appears.
May be we should ask developers for adding automatic updating of menu item? For users no needed to open document.

IMHO almost all users will try to open some documents after installing this extension for see how it works. So, I see no problem. At least on Linux.

On Windows not tested. There situation may be much worse.

I disagree that users will open a new document without a message telling them to do so. They could as well want to use the extension on a document already opened. So I still consider this a usability problem.

All dictionaries require restart to work. The application should ask for restart and re-open current documents automatically.

That does not sound impossible to do. Poking around a bit in desktop/, I find existing code that restarts the office, e.g. when a weirdo jre selection would make that necessary. Random code pointers:

grep for: OfficeRestartManager

desktop/source/app/app.cxx:68:#include <com/sun/star/task/OfficeRestartManager.hpp>
desktop/source/app/app.cxx:1418:    Reference< XRestartManager > xRestartManager( OfficeRestartManager::get(xContext) );
desktop/source/app/app.cxx:1727:        OfficeRestartManager::get(comphelper::getProcessComponentContext())->
desktop/source/app/check_ext_deps.cxx:46:#include <com/sun/star/task/OfficeRestartManager.hpp>
desktop/source/app/check_ext_deps.cxx:423:        task::OfficeRestartManager::get(context)->requestRestart(
svtools/source/dialogs/restartdialog.cxx:14:#include <com/sun/star/task/OfficeRestartManager.hpp>
svtools/source/dialogs/restartdialog.cxx:77:        css::task::OfficeRestartManager::get(context)->requestRestart(
desktop/source/deployment/misc/dp_misc.cxx:41:#include <com/sun/star/task/OfficeRestartManager.hpp>
desktop/source/deployment/misc/dp_misc.cxx:565:        Reference<task::XRestartManager> restarter(task::OfficeRestartManager::get(comphelper::getProcessComponentContext()));

etc. This is even at the api, so extensions can use it directly:

offapi/com/sun/star/task/OfficeRestartManager.idl:33:singleton OfficeRestartManager : XRestartManager;

 Hi, I'm working on this bug. And I'm trying to do live menu updating. I couldn't find newly installed extension's configuration file. Which directory are they being hold, is that extensions/source/update/check/org/openoffice/Office/Addons.xcu ? And should I check the configuration data shouldn't I ?

irem committed a patch related to this issue.
It has been pushed to "master":

http://cgit.freedesktop.org/libreoffice/core/commit/?id=2c1056d679187a702bad3a2ba5dcb6b068e1aa5e

tdf#46279 Show restart message after extension installation

It will be available in 5.3.0.

The patch should be included in the daily builds available at
http://dev-builds.libreoffice.org/daily/ in the next 24-48 hours. More
information about daily builds can be found at:
http://wiki.documentfoundation.org/Testing_Daily_Builds

Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.

Seems solved

(In reply to Commit Notification from comment #14)

> Affected users are encouraged to test the fix and report feedback.

Hi,

Most extensions that I use do not require restart.
But now it is presented as if is is needed.
IMO this is not a desired situation.

To solve this, possibly an extension of the description.xml package could help?

ping - is my complaint moot ? :)

Maybe it's best to extend the description.xml in the package to have a <askrestart> node and use that for choosing the needed action in the UI.

(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #18)
> Maybe it's best to extend the description.xml in the package to have a
> <askrestart> node and use that for choosing the needed action in the UI.

Nah, it makes a lot of sense. The only concern would perhaps be backwards compatibility and good choice of default value

(In reply to Katarina Behrens (CIB) from comment #19)
> (In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #18)
> > Maybe it's best to extend the description.xml in the package to have a
> > <askrestart> node and use that for choosing the needed action in the UI.
> 
> Nah, it makes a lot of sense. The only concern would perhaps be backwards
> compatibility and good choice of default value

Thanks. Safe is that only extensions that need a restart will need to use that property. No property, no restart.

(In reply to Cor Nouws from comment #18)
> Maybe it's best to extend the description.xml in the package to have a
> <askrestart> node and use that for choosing the needed action in the UI.

+1

As discussed in the UX meeting Oct/14 the recommendation is to revert the patch; and in general to add the restart option to the extension specification.

Hi Irem

I am sorry for the fuzz on your excellent work. You did what the ticket asked you to do, you even asked questions about implementation details, so I consider your work as valuable !!

Sometimes when people see how a patch work, they realise the implementation (again not your work) detail should have been different, this is unfortunate but happens in real life...in this case we normally do not revert the patch, but open a new ticket, that can extend/change/enhance the work you have done.

I hope you will continue have fun with LO, and please contact me, if I can do anything to help.

Hi,

(In reply to jan iversen from comment #23)

> I am sorry for the fuzz on your excellent work. You did what the ticket
> asked you to do, you even asked questions about implementation details, so I
> consider your work as valuable !!

Let me support you in that, Jan!

> Sometimes when people see how a patch work, they realise the implementation
> (again not your work) detail should have been different, this is unfortunate
> but happens in real life...in this case we normally do not revert the patch,
> but open a new ticket, that can extend/change/enhance the work you have done.

Of course that is fine too. Maybe it is interesting for Irem or someone else to expand the initial work a bit?

Please let's stop the discussion here.  Irem who successfully finished this EasyHack did a great work here - he's done what he was asked for.

If there are further improvements to the solution needed (like a flag to say that the extension needs a restart - which is a good idea I believe), please let's discuss it in a new bug.  Thank you!