Rüdiger Timm schrieb:
>
> Caolan McNamara wrote:
>> On Tue, 2007-02-13 at 09:54 +0100, Stephan Bergmann wrote:
>>> FYI: <http://odftoolkit.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?list=dev&msgNo=32>
>>
>> Yeah, I'm very much in favour of this myself. Split the build into two
>> parts the API stable ure stuff, and the rest. I'm trying to home-brew
>> some hackery to fake this up.
>>
>> The current practical problems are of course as listed above and
>> [...]
>
>>
>> So it's certainly kludgy to try and do it right now, but is a very
>> attractive goal for me to be able to just rebuild the portion of OOo
>> affected by whatever bug I've just fixed. And a nice thin edge of a
>> wedge to make OOo more modular at build-time as well as at runtime.
>>
>> C.
>>
>
> I also like the idea to modularize products and packages. But I am no
> friend of splitting it at build time, at least now.
> For one I still remember times when we here at Sun Hamburg practized
> such a split between SDK and rest of office. It was quite some effort to
> reach that split (f.e. separating idl files into two separate modules,
> 'udkapi' and 'offapi') and some effort to mainatain it. It was unhandy
> to work with. And we gained nearly nothing. So in the end we again
> merged both workspaces into one.
We gained nothing as there was no demand for a split. This may change in
the future (I hope it will). The maintenance effort mainly exists in the
heads of the developers: they must make themselves aware of it and act
accordingly. IIRC people never tried to understand why we had two idl
modules and so they often feeled annouyed. But maybe my memories fool me.
> Second reason is that (curently) this does not fit our development
> stile. We do childworkspaces feature wise. With the current degree of
> code mudularity this quite often means to work on base (URE) modules
^^^
I hope that this is a typo and not a Freudian slip! :-)
> providing some new functionality and applications where you want to use
> that in one childworkspace.
> So, yes, it may be an attractive goal. But we should start with package
> restructuring and more code modularity. Stick with building on one
> workspace for now.
I agree that it is fortunate to be able to work on a CWS that contains
all necessary modules even if they are part of 2 or 3 products.
OTOH I think it is essential that we make it easy to build SDK and URE
from scratch independently from OOo. This is the kind of split we need.
That does not exclude that active development work (CWS) still happens
in the integrated environment. As long as all products share the same
cvs repository I don't think that this is endangered.
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]
