On Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:28:32 -0400 Came this utterance fomulated by Douglas St.Clair to my mailbox:
> Hmmmm. First I'm generally pleased with OO. Good feature set. Nothing > I have cared about was ever broken. However a monolithic architecture > seems like a poor choice for an open source project. AFAIK the suite has been this way since it was released prior to Sun purchasing it. There are two ways of looking at this, user perspective and developer perspective. As a user, the program is one large download, this may be a + or - for users. Certain parts may be installed alone, but this may cause problems and doesn't save much disk space so why bother. The different interfaces generally work better together, and master docs is tightly integrated. As a developer, clear protocols need to be established for the interelationship of the various parts. You need to understand the overall picture as well as the individual part you are working on. There are strong correlations with internet programming and the multiple protocols involved there. Different parts are programmed in different languages but with a common API. Huge learning curve as with all large established projects. Plusses and minuses in the method but it works well and works across multiple OS's. This argument was played out in Mozilla over their main product. It was broken up to Firefox and Thunderbird yet Seamonkey still exists. Admittedly many OO.o developers probably look with envy at Mozilla's XULrunner but that is a different story. -- Michael All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well - Julian of Norwich 1342 - 1416 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
