Kay,
Le Thu, 30 Apr 2009 10:29:47 +0200, Kay Ramme <kay.ra...@sun.com> a écrit : > > OOo Folks, > > by now OOo has been regarded as the only real alternative office > suite, sometimes hard to build, often admired for its feature > completeness, somewhat beaten because of the memory footprint, > understood to have one of the most classical graphical user > interfaces ever, loved to recover MS documents, and so on ... > > Many words may be used for OOo, though small is not with them :-) > OOo is a huge project, with lots of code and a more or less monolithic > architecture. (Even :-) the ESC understands that size does not only > has advantages (though it sometimes matters :-). > > (see http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ESC_dashboard) > > It seems a hero (or five) is needed ... we (Cynthia, Xiuzhi, LiuTao, > Ingo and I) want to move out to fill this position and therefore need > your (mental) support ... > > ... we are not (yet) many copies, but we also have a plan, and we do > look human etc. :-) > > The Goals are: > - Adapt the OOo source to enable (more) custom-tailor products. > - Support custom-tailor products in the build system by > - checking out what is needed only, > - building what is needed only, > - re-using intermediate or final deliverables. > - Enable pre-build intermediates and their usage. > > And this is what we want to do first: > - Create a "build helper", responsible for > - getting the source, > - getting prerequisites and pre-builds, > - configuring the sources, taking care of dependencies ..., > - and (optionally) building it. > - Add missing/useful configuration switches (e.g. for headless > support). > - Re-factor according to needs (e.g. writer only etc.). > > This "build helper" may be compared to the Linux kernels menuconfig / > xconfig, first configure it extensively, ideally in a graphical way, > than build it. > > Later on we may > - rework SCP to configure the sources more dynamically, > - provide pre-build intermediates to reduce build times for many, > - disentangle the OOo applications, and > - do even more ... > > We would like to create a(nother) (incubator) project as the umbrella > for our enterprise, which we would like to call > > "Modularization" > > See http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Modularization for a > first sketch. > > It may be important to mention, that we want to keep things SIMPLE. > Please give feedback or show interest!, this is needed according to > our rules. > > > May the force be with you ... argh - wrong movie :-) I have read the wiki pages, and while I'm all for this kind of vision, I am not sure if I understood this correctly: modularization for you seems to essentially takes place at the building level, and not so much an application level. This would mean, for instance, that we could have several "sub-versions of OOo", but this would be different from having an office suite with "modular" applications (with less common dependencies, etc.). Am I getting this right or am I making things too complex? Anyway; you have my interest :-) Best, Charles. > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.org
