Development under 1C - what architecture / technology to choose?

Question

1C

Good afternoon,
open the secret - what are the modern technologies / methods for developing solutions on 1C (8.2 / 8.3) in order to get a solid product on the one hand, and on the other hand, to keep the ability to update 1C: Accounting with standard updates.
My thoughts on the topic, options:
1. Write your solution in 1C, dock it with standard 1C: Accounting through uploading (file/OLE/web sockets, etc.).
Pros:
ideal update of the typical 1C: Accounting
Cons:
two different programs for the accountant and for the current technical process of the enterprise, flexibility (flexibility) of unloading
, the need to synchronize directories
2. Add the standard1C: Accounting, if possible, so that a minimum of objects is removed from support and without much changing (adequately supplementing) the data structure Pros
:
one program for the internal and accounting technical process
no need for synchronization
Cons:
complexity of the program
;
for development (you won’t change the data structure much)
sooner or later support for 8.2 / 8.3 will end, and it will be very dreary to move to a newer platform / release
3. Online OLEinteraction. The configuration is written "from scratch", through OLE it picks up the current 1C: Accounting with all its objects. Additional directories are stored in their new configuration, we compare them with existing ones in 1C: Accounting by UUID.
Pros:
our “added” data is stored in a separate place from 1C: Accounting
Cons:
the need to draw our interfaces even for typical operations (setting up a nomenclature, for example)
I don’t understand if UUIDs are constant when, say, updating the platform / configuration
I don’t like any from the above options. Surely there is an adequate architecture if you want a lot of your own and new things, but at the same time do not avoid updates.

Answer 1

Pay attention to such a thing as configuration extensions. They allow you to change the functionality of the configuration without removing it from support.

Answer 2

For example, the electronic document management of the Contour, processing (+ small modifications of the conf) is just an ideal example.
Very poor functionality.
Easy to set up.
Doesn't interfere with anything.