Daniel Carrera wrote: > In my experience, (1) coding the extension was easy, but (2) the > documentatin was inpenetrable and (3) I couldn't figure out how to > deploy them. There just wasn't a simple system for that.
Sorry, but the SDK documentation clearly describes how you can do that with a simple command line tool (pkgchk.exe or in OOo2.0 also unopkg.exe). I agree that the documentation is an obstacle. But is that different to other projects like Mozilla? Complex matter needs a lot of documentation. When I wanted to get an overview about extension development in Mozilla/Firefox I also recognized that this isn't possible without reading a lot of stuff. > But in any event, based on my experience, documentation and deployment > are the biggest obstacles. It'd be wonderful if, for example, OOo had a > dialog for extensions, like Thunderbird. It could download the > extensions from some central server, like OOoMacros. But OOo 2.0 *will* have such a dialog. Check out one of the 1.9.x milestones, you will find the dialog under "Tools-Package Manager". It currently doesn't download directly from a server because we first want to solve the security issues. People are very concerned about security - right so! An office program that downloads arbitrary components directly from a web server without a security concept would be a real nightmare, wouldn't it? That would be worse than the worst Active-X controls (the Internet Explorer extensions) that are often criticized for their lack of security. > But somehow, a lot more people write Firefox extensions than OOo > extensions, and FF extensions are easier to install. So I guess the > problems lie in the deployment end. No, installing Firefox extensions is a real pain. I described the reasons for my judgement already. It *looks* easier (because it is so easy to do it), but the problems appear later. And for administrators it's a complete disaster, this makes the whole thing a toy, a nice one, but a toy. Other problems: very often extensions don't run in the next browser version or themes interfere with extensions. That's not what I would call "easy deployment". And all those problems are conceptional ones. No easy way out. Compare OOo to this: I have written an Add-On for the very first OOo version that supported Add-Ons (forgot which one it was, but it was before the 1.1 release). It still can be installed into the latest 1.79.x build without any problems and runs like a charm. Deinstalling without any residues(!) takes a simple command line operation. *That's* easy deployment and maintainability. The API stability of OOo is important for Add-On developers because it avoids incompatibilities with later versions and OOo has one of the smartest and best deployment concepts I ever saw (I was not involved in its implementation, so I can say this without making it look like self-adulation :-)). >> IMHO the GUI interface for >> of OOo is even easier to understand than the DOM/XUL stuff from Mozilla. > > I found XUL much easier. I actually enjoyed writing a GUI with XUL. Because you know it. Because you read about it. Of course (as I already pointed out) the *creation* of a GUI is the problem of OOo extensions, not the code that reachts on button clicks etc. The dispatch API that OOo uses for this communication and an application is *very* simple, believe me. More sophisticated work is needed for accessing the OOo core API if f.e. you want to iterate through text or insert some. The same is true for Mozilla, though many things are easier because the matter is easier. Manipulating a DOM tree is not easier than learning f.e. the OOo API way how to walk through a text document if you don't know anything when you start. Of course, if you know something about HTML, CSS, DOM etc. it is easier to build your application on top of that knowledge while you usually don't know much about OOo's internal structure - but hey, isn't that an unfair comparison? ;-) This looks like the same attitude that lets people say why they will stay with MS Office and not learn about OOo: because they know it and it is sooooooo much easier to use. It's time for a LART! ;-) >> I saw examples where professional developers created an OOo extension in >> one or two weeks of work. > > I wrote some useful macros in about that time (readability analyzer, > virtual keyboard) but couldn't manage to make them easy to install. So I > dropped the projects. Perhaps you didn't ask? Perhaps you asked, people told you about pkgchk.exe and you didn't follow the advice? I don't know, but it *is* easy. > Templates would have helped me inmsensely. Could you donate those > templates to Ian's Wiki? That would be a good step forward. We are thinking about adding templates to the SDK. Perhaps we can provide some on our API project Web site as soon as they are ready. > Will you have a template that includes an installer? I already answered that question: the installer is already there. > What are the chances of a near-future OOo version having an extension > installer, like Thunderbird? Get 1.9.x. :-) Best regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
