[EXT] Dialog doesn't show up for Filter Extension
Hi,
I am writing a C++ filter extension for DOCX file format. I need to get
some information from user before opening the document, After that default
DOCX filter will be used.
I was able to create a filter which can open DOCX files. Also created XDL
file using Basic Dialog editor.
Now when I try to use this XDL file, I don't see any dialog opening up.
I tried to follow the directions in
http://openoffice.2283327.n4.nabble.com/help-with-dialog-boxes-td3026585.html
But I couldn't get it working yet.
sal_Int16 SAL_CALL SimpleDialog::execute() throw ( RuntimeException )
{
Reference XDialogProvider xDialogProvider(
mxServiceFactory-createInstanceWithContext(
C2U(com.sun.star.awt.DialogProvider2), mxContext), UNO_QUERY_THROW );
OUString sXDLPath = getFilterInstallPath();
sXDLPath += C2U(xdl/SimpleDialog.xdl);
mxDialog = Reference XDialog
(xDialogProvider-createDialog(sXDLPath), UNO_QUERY_THROW);
Reference XControl xControl(mxDialog, UNO_QUERY_THROW);
short nRet = mxDialog-execute();
return mRet;
}
I get a valid xdl file path in sXDLPath, File path starts with file://
instead of vnd.sun.star.extension:// Is this OK ?
Is there any mistake in the code snippet above?
Because, If I create dialog programatically, it works fine. Problem happens
only when I use XDL file.
Thanks in advance!
--
Mani Chandrasekar
Re: July board report.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version be mentioned? Best regards Simon
Re: July board report.
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version be mentioned? It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still unresolved. The previous Board report was issued just before the CVE was made public, and is thus not mentioned. Given it's been unresolved for four months, two public, shouldn't it be mentioned this time? Thanks, Simon
July board report.
Hi. It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. disclaimer: if you make changes directly in the report, the wording might be changed. I intent to submit the report with changes sunday 5th july. rgds jan i.
Re: July board report.
On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version be mentioned? It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still unresolved. However we have provided a work around description, which seems to be sufficient. rgds jan i. Best regards Simon
Re: July board report.
On 30 June 2015 at 14:45, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version be mentioned? It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still unresolved. The previous Board report was issued just before the CVE was made public, and is thus not mentioned. Given it's been unresolved for four months, two public, shouldn't it be mentioned this time? Allow me to correct your statement, it is not unresolved. We discussed it on this list and a workaround has been provided. That is the important part, had we not issued a workaround (and please do remember the theoretical nature of the problem), then it would have been escalated through other channels. But apart from that it is not custom to mention CVE in board reports, independent of their status. I have nothing against mentioning it, if the community at large feels it is needed, even though it would be exceptional. rgds jan i. Thanks, Simon
review canceled: [Issue 107734] Support for Math Input Panel in Windows 7 : [Attachment 84808] not yet ready, but can be tested
Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de has canceled Regina Henschel rb.hensc...@t-online.de's request for review: Issue 107734: Support for Math Input Panel in Windows 7 https://bz.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=107734 Attachment 84808: not yet ready, but can be tested https://bz.apache.org/ooo/attachment.cgi?id=84808action=edit - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: July board report.
Am 06/30/2015 01:51 PM, schrieb jan i: It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. just a spontaneous suggestion for the moment: Release 4.1.2: I would move the we have a release manager part down to the release section as IMHO it belongs there. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CVE-2015-1774 (was: July board report)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: THE TL;DR: I agree. The extensive lag to availability of 4.1.2 is far more pertinent at the level of the Board Report. The existence of CVE-2015-1774 does not change that and should not overshadow it. I think featuring CVE-2015-1774 in the report exaggerates its importance and ignores the deliberation that accompanied our announcement of a straightforward CVE-2015-1774 mitigation, http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html. I would largely agree, although I still believe the CVE and its mitigation should be documented at http://www.openoffice.org/download/ as there is a negligible chance any user downloading AOO will see it otherwise and I believe the risk is greater than is being recognised. MORE MUSINGS We are not talking about a defect for which there is a known exploit and there would be very few users, if any, who might encounter one, were one worth developing. While Simon has expressed his own perspective on how dangerous the related defect is and what users are exposed to, that is not the consensus of the AOO security team and those who have oversight on its deliberations. That does not mean we shouldn't take further steps. It just means we have concluded there is no emergency. It would probably be a simpler and more-fruitful action to simply make this web page, http://www.openoffice.org/security/, the bulletins, and their translations more prominent and easily found on our web site. Also, with respect to CVE-2015-1774, I think the population of concern is those who use old (ca. 1999 and earlier) Korean-language HWP documents and are happily using OO.o 2.4 through 3.4 releases, remaining ignorant of AOO 4.1.2 and already-repaired LibreOffice distributions. If a malicious party were to create an HWP file crafted to exploit the vulnerability but then distribute it with another extension (say .ODT), AOO would still open it. I thus believe that there are two populations of concern: 1. Users of HWP files on any existing version of AOO and predecessors. This is alleged to be a small population, and I have no reason to disagree. Were this the only population of concern I would agree that the risk would be minimal. 2. All users of any distributed version of AOO and predecessors where the documented mitigation has not been applied are also vulnerable to the creation of a malicious HWP renamed with a benign file extension. There is no known exploit at present, but as the population of users with the vulnerability grows the risk increases. We can do what we are able to do, when we do it, yet there is little to be done for folks who have no desire or even means to replace their OpenOffice software. I agree that we can only do what we have the resources to do. However, I continue to believe we are not taking all the steps we could to ensure that the second population of concern are adequately informed even if we do not have the resources to protect them. S.
RE: July board report [and CVE-2015-1774].
THE TL;DR: I agree. The extensive lag to availability of 4.1.2 is far more pertinent at the level of the Board Report. The existence of CVE-2015-1774 does not change that and should not overshadow it. I think featuring CVE-2015-1774 in the report exaggerates its importance and ignores the deliberation that accompanied our announcement of a straightforward CVE-2015-1774 mitigation, http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html. - Dennis MORE MUSINGS We are not talking about a defect for which there is a known exploit and there would be very few users, if any, who might encounter one, were one worth developing. While Simon has expressed his own perspective on how dangerous the related defect is and what users are exposed to, that is not the consensus of the AOO security team and those who have oversight on its deliberations. That does not mean we shouldn't take further steps. It just means we have concluded there is no emergency. It would probably be a simpler and more-fruitful action to simply make this web page, http://www.openoffice.org/security/, the bulletins, and their translations more prominent and easily found on our web site. Also, with respect to CVE-2015-1774, I think the population of concern is those who use old (ca. 1999 and earlier) Korean-language HWP documents and are happily using OO.o 2.4 through 3.4 releases, remaining ignorant of AOO 4.1.2 and already-repaired LibreOffice distributions. We can do what we are able to do, when we do it, yet there is little to be done for folks who have no desire or even means to replace their OpenOffice software. -Original Message- From: jan i [mailto:j...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2015 06:20 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: July board report. On 30 June 2015 at 14:45, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 1:38 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: On 30 June 2015 at 13:54, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 12:51 PM, jan i j...@apache.org wrote: Hi. It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. Should the fact CVE-2015-1774 is still unresolved in the released version be mentioned? It is kind of obvious, no new release so of course it is still unresolved. The previous Board report was issued just before the CVE was made public, and is thus not mentioned. Given it's been unresolved for four months, two public, shouldn't it be mentioned this time? Allow me to correct your statement, it is not unresolved. We discussed it on this list and a workaround has been provided. That is the important part, had we not issued a workaround (and please do remember the theoretical nature of the problem), then it would have been escalated through other channels. But apart from that it is not custom to mention CVE in board reports, independent of their status. I have nothing against mentioning it, if the community at large feels it is needed, even though it would be exceptional. rgds jan i. Thanks, Simon - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: CVE-2015-1774 (was: July board report)
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 9:54 AM, Simon Phipps si...@webmink.com wrote: On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 5:23 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: THE TL;DR: I agree. The extensive lag to availability of 4.1.2 is far more pertinent at the level of the Board Report. The existence of CVE-2015-1774 does not change that and should not overshadow it. I think featuring CVE-2015-1774 in the report exaggerates its importance and ignores the deliberation that accompanied our announcement of a straightforward CVE-2015-1774 mitigation, http://www.openoffice.org/security/cves/CVE-2015-1774.html. I would largely agree, although I still believe the CVE and its mitigation should be documented at http://www.openoffice.org/download/ as there is a negligible chance any user downloading AOO will see it otherwise and I believe the risk is greater than is being recognised. A reasonable suggestion I think. As it's been pointed out, there is little impact on the great majority of our users, but, additional information for new downloads is a good idea. MORE MUSINGS We are not talking about a defect for which there is a known exploit and there would be very few users, if any, who might encounter one, were one worth developing. While Simon has expressed his own perspective on how dangerous the related defect is and what users are exposed to, that is not the consensus of the AOO security team and those who have oversight on its deliberations. That does not mean we shouldn't take further steps. It just means we have concluded there is no emergency. It would probably be a simpler and more-fruitful action to simply make this web page, http://www.openoffice.org/security/, the bulletins, and their translations more prominent and easily found on our web site. Also, with respect to CVE-2015-1774, I think the population of concern is those who use old (ca. 1999 and earlier) Korean-language HWP documents and are happily using OO.o 2.4 through 3.4 releases, remaining ignorant of AOO 4.1.2 and already-repaired LibreOffice distributions. If a malicious party were to create an HWP file crafted to exploit the vulnerability but then distribute it with another extension (say .ODT), AOO would still open it. I thus believe that there are two populations of concern: 1. Users of HWP files on any existing version of AOO and predecessors. This is alleged to be a small population, and I have no reason to disagree. Were this the only population of concern I would agree that the risk would be minimal. 2. All users of any distributed version of AOO and predecessors where the documented mitigation has not been applied are also vulnerable to the creation of a malicious HWP renamed with a benign file extension. There is no known exploit at present, but as the population of users with the vulnerability grows the risk increases. We can do what we are able to do, when we do it, yet there is little to be done for folks who have no desire or even means to replace their OpenOffice software. I agree that we can only do what we have the resources to do. However, I continue to believe we are not taking all the steps we could to ensure that the second population of concern are adequately informed even if we do not have the resources to protect them. S. -- - MzK We can all sleep easy at night knowing that somewhere at any given time, the Foo Fighters are out there fighting Foo. -- David Letterman
macro equivalent of VBA Range()
I am an absolute beginner to OpenOffice macros, but have some knowledge of VBA. What is the OpenOffce macro equivalent of the VBA statement: x = Range(Y) Also, what is the equivalent of: x = Cells(1,1) Thanks! Mark Polczynski
Re: July board report.
On 30 June 2015 at 17:44, Marcus marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Am 06/30/2015 01:51 PM, schrieb jan i: It is again time to make a board report, you can find my proposal at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/2015+July comments and changes are welcome. just a spontaneous suggestion for the moment: Release 4.1.2: I would move the we have a release manager part down to the release section as IMHO it belongs there. good catch, will do that. rgds jan i. Marcus - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: StarWriter for DOS needed
On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 8:40 AM, Jan Eric Hogh jan.h...@outrange.de wrote: I recently registered at the OO-forum and asked if someone could send me a download link for this really old piece of software (StarWriter for DOS, may also be called StarWriter compact 2.0 for DOS). One of the moderators told me to email the developer list, because he is sure that someone there has an archive of old versions. The founder of Stardivision Gmbh,Marco Boerries is on Twitter, and very approacheable. @t3killer https://twitter.com/t3killer https://twitter.com/t3killer I suggest you contact him. I´m sure he could donate a copy of that abandoned software to The Internet Archive (Archive.org), for historical reasons... FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario - George Orwell
Re: LanguageTool - place link on AOO site
On 29/06/2015 jan i wrote: On 29 June 2015 at 16:53, Rory O'Farrell wrote: There is already a link from the Extensions repository, at http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/languagetool Perhaps this should be linked also to the sadebar on the download page? I would be a bit careful with that, if done (and I am not against it being done) it must be 100% clear that this is not coming from apache, and not part of our release We already link to the Extensions site from http://www.openoffice.org/download/ with the appropriate wording (Extend your Apache OpenOffice functionality with a large and growing library of extensions and dictionaries from other users) and when clicking on it one immediately sees the most popular extensions. Maybe the download page of the English dictionary (the one managed by Marco on the Extensions site) can be modified to recommend LanguageTool as a further add-on? Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: LanguageTool - place link on AOO site
In the french area, we have a link on the main page for: the best extensions to enhance AOO This link jumps to the community forum and a dedicated section: https://forum.openoffice.org/fr/forum/forum18.html - Mail original - De: Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie À: dev@openoffice.apache.org Envoyé: Lundi 29 Juin 2015 16:53:34 Objet: Re: LanguageTool - place link on AOO site On Mon, 29 Jun 2015 15:47:16 +0100 Marco A.G.Pinto marcoagpi...@mail.telepac.pt wrote: Hello! Just wondering if you place a link to the grammar checker, LanguageTool, somewhere in the area of the AOO downloads: https://languagetool.org I am involved on the Portuguese rules for it. LanguageTool is an important add-on for AOO since it supports over 20 languages and it suggests grammar corrections, which is something missing in AOO but which MS Office has by default. Thanks! Kind regards, Marco A.G.Pinto -- -- There is already a link from the Extensions repository, at http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/languagetool Perhaps this should be linked also to the sadebar on the download page? -- Rory O'Farrell ofarr...@iol.ie - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
