On 11 Jan 2008 at 10:12, bryan rasmussen wrote: > I have an application where I need to automate MS Office to do > rendering of MS Office documents, for some of the reasons outlined in > this knowledgebase document from MS .... > Since I need to automate without user interactivity and with the need > to run a lot of these instances concurrently I have the imperfectly > formed opinion that I would like to have confirmed, with hopefully > some documentation that shows the correctness of the opinion, that > opinion is that OO would be preferable to this task. Anyone know if > that is correct or incorrect?
I can't compare OOo and Office. However, I have recently completed a small project which, from a web page, creates a simple document from scratch, and uses OOo to offer conversions to .doc and .pdf. It all has to be done totally non-interactively, of course. I did notice a potential problem using OOo this way, which is that instances running for a given user seem not to be totally independent. So for example, one process waiting for debugger input would cause another to hang. I didn't investigate fully, because in my case, I don't expect multiple instances and lockup would be a minor nuisance, not critical. It may be a problem for busier systems though; but maybe this only happens when the debugger is involved - I don't know. FWIW BTW, I've found generating xml for OOo somewhat easier than creating rtf :-) Possibly unjustly, I regard what I've done as rather "fragile"; however it's been in use a few weeks now without problem. -- http://www.scottsonline.org.uk lists incoming sites blocked because of spam [EMAIL PROTECTED] Mike Scott, Harlow, Essex, England --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
