Juergen Schmidt wrote: > but it shows that you have thought about it and i like the idea. It > should be taken as a pointer for future designs. We should think about > extensions and should always ask if a generic approach can make sense. > Can it be of interest to integrate in existing or extend functional > areas with own implementations via extensions? If yes and if it won't be > a performance killer we should prefer generic designs wherever it is > possible. > > We have already a lot of useful service provider interfaces (SPI) where > it is possible to integrate in the office via extensions. This SPIs make > it interesting to implement extensions (e.g. calc add-ins, add-ons, > spellchecker, filter, ...).
While we are at it: the idea for extensible text fields would be to mark parts of the document as a "field" and assign some meta data to it that can be used to generate the "field content". The component interpreting the meta data and generating the field content would be the service provide here. Our current field concept where the field content can be nothing more than a simple string can become a simple special case (if we need it at all as the more general case will already cover it). This is the coarse concept. And it needs some file format changes (at least ODF1.2) befor we can work on it. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
