On Monday 12 February 2007 21:54, Mathias wrote: > I didn't start this discussion, I just felt that mentioning dbus in the > context of the Zotero interfaces completely misses the point.
Ah, there is the mixup. The reason I came into this thread, as a KOffice guy, is because having zotero interface with OOo is just going to solve a really small part of the bigger problem. Or, more correctly, it solves just one problem while a little extra effort can solve two dozen problems. The additional problems occur when you realize that Zotero won't like having to reinvent the wheel for each and every word-processor they want to support. And I don't want to reinvent the wheel for each and every bibliographic application that works with KWord. I bet you'll agree on that last point wrt oowriter. So, this thread, to me, is really about a generic API that can be implemented by several WPs and the other end by several different citation engines. One part here is how those applications communicate over the wire. I.e. an RPC layer. So this is not about me choosing to let KOffice depend on a RPC layer that OOo developed (and split off, I know). This is about choosing an open standard over a personal preference. > And as you > forgot to mention the missing Windows support I felt the need to point > this out as otherwise the uninitiated reader could get the wrong > impression. and > But if you need Windows > support today it is a no-go. Time will show how much time it will take > to reach a considerable maturity of dbus running on Windows. I think I corrected you in an earlier message already; there _is_ windows support. And mac support. > I think UNO is more mature than dbus just because it exists as a real > product for a longer time. It's simple math to verify this. I think this ignores the experience behind the product, which I explained in my previous email. Having the combined expertise of many more uses, many more years and different codebases and approaches all poured into this product beats shelf life-time any day. > Currently we are talking about Zotero. They are using SOAP and this is > fine for both MSOffice and OOo as well. And I don't see a reason that > KOffice can't use it that way. So I would go for it. SOAP is absolutely > adequate for the task, it should be usable from all decent RPC layers > and is platform independent. What else do we need? If the current communication that zotero uses to communicate with Word already worked for OOo, we would not be having this discussion. More to the point, I'm hoping for a more long term solution that help us all, including the guys from IBM and corel, to create an open interface to tie in any citation engine with any WP. As RPC layers go, SOAP is not great (ask anyone that actually programmed on it). So I'd like to avoid using that for a long term project. Using Uno as an RPC layer may work, but if there is a choice between an open standard (dbus) and an in-house solution that is created by one WP vendor, politics say that its always best to go for the open standard. Anyway, I hope this cleared any misconceptions. My personal preference is not the most important one, and this is not just about zotero and oowriter. Its about having one API that a set of ODF based WPs are willing to support. Ultimately the programmer decides and this is low on my personal priority list. -- Thomas Zander
pgpacyAAGsrvL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
