Re: Performance test comparisons
On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.orgwrote: If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving, and closing AndrewMacro.odt LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc document... Not sure what they used, however. On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their 4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see if we could learn anything. I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware. Memory use (KB for soffice.bin): OOo 3.3.0:133,472 AOO 3.4.1: 129,928 LO 4.0: 165,796 Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads) OOo 3.3.0:16.0 AOO 3.4.1:20.9 LO 4.0: 23.7 Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance tests of OpenOffice? Regards, -Rob -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php Hi. If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our international version, An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment. Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116 languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb. I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply --with-lang) Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the code, and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main memory. My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for performance, especially in regard to footprint. just my 2ct. rgds jan I
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On 13.02.2013 08:28, Norbert Thiebaud wrote:
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
(OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list).
In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*:
In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a
series
of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly,
it is a constant.
[...]
For those interested in the actual Math... in Math words have meaning
and that meaning have often context. let me develop a bit the notion
of 'form' mentioned earlier:
for instance in the expression 'in an indeterminate form', there is
'form' and it matter because in the context of determining extension
by continuity of a function, there are certain case where you can
transform you equation into another 'form' but if these transformation
lead you to an 'indeterminate form', you have to find another
transformation to continue...
hence h = f^g with f(x)-0 x-inf and g(x)-0 x-inf then -- once it
is establish that h actually converge in the operating set, and that
is another topic altogether -- lim h(x) x-0 = (lim f)^(lim g).
passing 'to the limit' in each term would yield 0^0 with is a
indeterminable 'form' (not a value, not a number, not claimed to be
the result of a calculation of power(0,0), but a 'form' of the
equation that is indeterminate...) at which point you cannot conclude,
what the limit is. What a mathematician is to do is to 'trans-form'
the original h in such a way that it lead him to a path to an actual
value.
in other words that is a very specific meaning for a very specific
subset of mathematics, that does not conflict with defining power(0,0)
= 1.
wrt to the 'context' of the quote I gave earlier:
Proposition 9: : Let X and Y be two sets, a and b their respective
cardinals, then the set X{superscript Y} has cardinal a {superscript
b}.
( I will use x^y here from now on to note x {superscript y} for readability )
Porposition 11: Let a be a cardinal. then a^0 = 1, a^1 = a, 1^a = 1;
and 0^a = 0 if a != 0
For there exist a unique mapping of 'empty-set' into any given set
(namely, the mapping whose graph is the empty set); the set of
mappings of a set consisting of a single element into an arbitrary set
X is equipotent to X (Chapter II, pragraph 5.3); there exist a unique
mapping of an arbitrary set into a set consisting of a single element;
and finally there is not mapping of a non-empty set into the
empty-set;
* Note in particular that 0^0 = 1
Here is the full context of the quote. And if you think you have a
proof that there is a mathematical error there, by all means, rush to
your local university, as surely proving that half-way to the first
volume, on set theory, of a body of work that is acclaimed for it's
rigor and aim at grounding the entire field of mathematics soundly in
the rigor of set theory, there is an 'error', will surely promptly get
you a PhD in math... since that has escaped the attentive scrutiny and
peer review of the entire world of mathematicians for decades...
Thanks for providing some real math into this thread. I don't claim to
have understood everything you write, but still, I learned something new.
And I would never have expected to hear the name of Bourbaki on the dev
list. Thanks for that, too.
-Andre
Re: Performance test comparisons
On 2/13/13 9:42 AM, janI wrote: On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.orgwrote: If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving, and closing AndrewMacro.odt LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc document... Not sure what they used, however. On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their 4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see if we could learn anything. I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware. Memory use (KB for soffice.bin): OOo 3.3.0:133,472 AOO 3.4.1: 129,928 LO 4.0: 165,796 Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads) OOo 3.3.0:16.0 AOO 3.4.1:20.9 LO 4.0: 23.7 Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance tests of OpenOffice? Regards, -Rob -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php Hi. If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our international version, An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment. Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116 languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb. I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply --with-lang) Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the code, and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main memory. My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for performance, especially in regard to footprint. oh, wait wait wait, that is not true. We include one language per install set only. I don't say that our packaging is optimal and it would be much nicer to have a more flexible mechanism. One reason for the current install set is the one-click user experience that is somewhat important for our millions of Windows users - download, click, install... No second download and second click to install a lang pack. You can try to build a multi-lingual install set in instset-native/util dmake openoffice_en-US_de_da_sv_pl_... and can compare the size with the simple install sets for one language only. The build process and the localization process is far from good or optimal but it is not directly related to the outcome (install sets). It's more the wasted time during the build process. And the complex and not really easy to maintain localization process at all. From that point I appreciate your work and investigation to improve this process. If we can improve in the end the memory footprint in an installed office it's even better but I don't see this at the moment. Please show me that I am wrong and make it smaller ;-) Juergen just my 2ct. rgds jan I
Re: Performance test comparisons
On 13 February 2013 10:33, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/13/13 9:42 AM, janI wrote:
On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org
wrote:
If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving,
and
closing AndrewMacro.odt
LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc
documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc
document...
Not sure what they used, however.
On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on
Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their
4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see
if we could learn anything.
I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text
document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory
consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document
once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times
and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware.
Memory use (KB for soffice.bin):
OOo 3.3.0:133,472
AOO 3.4.1: 129,928
LO 4.0: 165,796
Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads)
OOo 3.3.0:16.0
AOO 3.4.1:20.9
LO 4.0: 23.7
Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance
tests of OpenOffice?
Regards,
-Rob
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt
http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Hi.
If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our
international version,
An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment.
Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb
However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116
languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb.
I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as
running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something
that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply
--with-lang)
Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the code,
and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main
memory.
My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for
performance, especially in regard to footprint.
oh, wait wait wait, that is not true. We include one language per
install set only. I don't say that our packaging is optimal and it would
be much nicer to have a more flexible mechanism.
Actually, we include 2, en-US and the foreign language ?
One reason for the current install set is the one-click user experience
that is somewhat important for our millions of Windows users -
download, click, install... No second download and second click to
install a lang pack.
You can try to build a multi-lingual install set in instset-native/util
dmake openoffice_en-US_de_da_sv_pl_...
and can compare the size with the simple install sets for one language
only.
Well I dont follow you, I use --with-lang=en da de and it works
correctly, but the source is actually expanded like this:
StringArray RID_PRINTDLG_STRLIST
{
ItemList [en-US] =
{
Print range; ;
All ~Pages; ;
Pa~ges; ;
};
ItemList [ ar ] =
{
نطاق الطباعة; ;
جميع ~الصÙØات; ;
الص~ÙØات; ;
};
ItemList [ ast ] =
{
Rangu d'imprentación; ;
Toles ~páxines; ;
Pá~xines; ;
};
ItemList [ be-BY ] =
{
ÐбÑÑг друкаваннÑ; ;
УÑе Ñтаронкі; ;
Друкаваць уÑе Ñтаронкі з
друкавальным змеÑтам.; ;
};
ItemList [ bg ] =
{
ОблаÑÑ‚ за печат; ;
Ð’Ñички ~Ñтраници; ;
Стра~ници; ;
};
ItemList [ bs ] =
{
Opseg za Å¡tampanje; ;
Sve ~stranice; ;
~Stranice; ;
};
ItemList [ ca ] =
{
Àrea d'impressió; ;
Totes les ~pà gines; ;
PÃ ~gines; ;
};
ItemList [ ca-XV ] =
{
Àrea d'impressió; ;
Totes les ~pà gines; ;
PÃ ~gines; ;
};
ItemList [ cs ] =
{
Tisk oblasti; ;
Všechny stránky; ;
Stránky; ;
};
ItemList [ cy ] =
Localize_sl, merged all languages into the source, independent of what you
write in --with-lang
I have also controlled the final exe, with strings, and it do contain
more languages than you selected in --with-lang
The build process and the localization process is far from good or
optimal but it is not directly related to the
Re: Performance test comparisons
On 2/13/13 12:12 PM, janI wrote:
On 13 February 2013 10:33, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/13/13 9:42 AM, janI wrote:
On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org
wrote:
If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving,
and
closing AndrewMacro.odt
LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc
documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc
document...
Not sure what they used, however.
On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on
Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their
4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see
if we could learn anything.
I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text
document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory
consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document
once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times
and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware.
Memory use (KB for soffice.bin):
OOo 3.3.0:133,472
AOO 3.4.1: 129,928
LO 4.0: 165,796
Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads)
OOo 3.3.0:16.0
AOO 3.4.1:20.9
LO 4.0: 23.7
Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance
tests of OpenOffice?
Regards,
-Rob
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt
http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Hi.
If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our
international version,
An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment.
Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb
However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116
languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb.
I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as
running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something
that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply
--with-lang)
Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the code,
and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main
memory.
My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for
performance, especially in regard to footprint.
oh, wait wait wait, that is not true. We include one language per
install set only. I don't say that our packaging is optimal and it would
be much nicer to have a more flexible mechanism.
Actually, we include 2, en-US and the foreign language ?
you are correct, en-US is the fall back if a string is not localized
One reason for the current install set is the one-click user experience
that is somewhat important for our millions of Windows users -
download, click, install... No second download and second click to
install a lang pack.
You can try to build a multi-lingual install set in instset-native/util
dmake openoffice_en-US_de_da_sv_pl_...
and can compare the size with the simple install sets for one language
only.
Well I dont follow you, I use --with-lang=en da de and it works
correctly, but the source is actually expanded like this:
StringArray RID_PRINTDLG_STRLIST
{
ItemList [en-US] =
{
Print range; ;
All ~Pages; ;
Pa~ges; ;
};
ItemList [ ar ] =
{
نطاق الطباعة; ;
جميع ~الصÙØات; ;
الص~ÙØات; ;
};
ItemList [ ast ] =
{
Rangu d'imprentación; ;
Toles ~páxines; ;
Pá~xines; ;
};
ItemList [ be-BY ] =
{
ÐбÑÑг друкаваннÑ; ;
УÑе Ñтаронкі; ;
Друкаваць уÑе Ñтаронкі з
друкавальным змеÑтам.; ;
};
ItemList [ bg ] =
{
ОблаÑÑ‚ за печат; ;
Ð’Ñички ~Ñтраници; ;
Стра~ници; ;
};
ItemList [ bs ] =
{
Opseg za Å¡tampanje; ;
Sve ~stranice; ;
~Stranice; ;
};
ItemList [ ca ] =
{
Àrea d'impressió; ;
Totes les ~pà gines; ;
PÃ ~gines; ;
};
ItemList [ ca-XV ] =
{
Àrea d'impressió; ;
Totes les ~pà gines; ;
PÃ ~gines; ;
};
ItemList [ cs ] =
{
Tisk oblasti; ;
Všechny stránky; ;
Stránky; ;
};
ItemList [ cy ] =
Localize_sl, merged all languages into the source, independent of what you
write in --with-lang
I have also controlled the final exe, with strings, and it do contain
more languages than you selected in --with-lang
ok, you have
Re: Performance test comparisons
On 13 February 2013 12:22, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/13/13 12:12 PM, janI wrote:
On 13 February 2013 10:33, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/13/13 9:42 AM, janI wrote:
On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak
and...@pitonyak.org
wrote:
If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving,
and
closing AndrewMacro.odt
LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc
documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc
document...
Not sure what they used, however.
On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote:
I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on
Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their
4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see
if we could learn anything.
I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text
document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory
consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document
once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times
and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware.
Memory use (KB for soffice.bin):
OOo 3.3.0:133,472
AOO 3.4.1: 129,928
LO 4.0: 165,796
Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads)
OOo 3.3.0:16.0
AOO 3.4.1:20.9
LO 4.0: 23.7
Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance
tests of OpenOffice?
Regards,
-Rob
--
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt
http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Hi.
If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our
international version,
An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment.
Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb
However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116
languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb.
I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well
as
running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is
something
that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply
--with-lang)
Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the
code,
and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in
main
memory.
My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for
performance, especially in regard to footprint.
oh, wait wait wait, that is not true. We include one language per
install set only. I don't say that our packaging is optimal and it would
be much nicer to have a more flexible mechanism.
Actually, we include 2, en-US and the foreign language ?
you are correct, en-US is the fall back if a string is not localized
One reason for the current install set is the one-click user experience
that is somewhat important for our millions of Windows users -
download, click, install... No second download and second click to
install a lang pack.
You can try to build a multi-lingual install set in instset-native/util
dmake openoffice_en-US_de_da_sv_pl_...
and can compare the size with the simple install sets for one language
only.
Well I dont follow you, I use --with-lang=en da de and it works
correctly, but the source is actually expanded like this:
StringArray RID_PRINTDLG_STRLIST
{
ItemList [en-US] =
{
Print range; ;
All ~Pages; ;
Pa~ges; ;
};
ItemList [ ar ] =
{
نطاق الطباعة; ;
جميع ~الص٠Øات; ;
الص~Ù Øات; ;
};
ItemList [ ast ] =
{
Rangu d'imprentación; ;
Toles ~páxines; ;
Pá~xines; ;
};
ItemList [ be-BY ] =
{
Ð Ð±Ñ Ñ Ð³ Ð´Ñ€ÑƒÐºÐ°Ð²Ð°Ð½Ð½Ñ ; ;
Ð£Ñ Ðµ Ñ Ñ‚Ð°Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐºÑ–; ;
Друкаваць ÑƒÑ Ðµ Ñ Ñ‚Ð°Ñ€Ð¾Ð½ÐºÑ– з
друкавальным Ð·Ð¼ÐµÑ Ñ‚Ð°Ð¼.; ;
};
ItemList [ bg ] =
{
ÐžÐ±Ð»Ð°Ñ Ñ‚ за печат; ;
Ð’Ñ Ð¸Ñ‡ÐºÐ¸ ~Ñ Ñ‚Ñ€Ð°Ð½Ð¸Ñ†Ð¸; ;
Стра~ници; ;
};
ItemList [ bs ] =
{
Opseg za Å¡tampanje; ;
Sve ~stranice; ;
~Stranice; ;
};
ItemList [ ca ] =
{
Àrea d'impressió; ;
Totes les ~pà gines; ;
PÃ ~gines; ;
};
ItemList [ ca-XV ] =
{
Àrea d'impressió; ;
Totes les ~pà gines; ;
PÃ ~gines; ;
};
ItemList [ cs ] =
{
Tisk oblasti; ;
Všechny stránky; ;
Stránky; ;
};
ItemList [ cy ] =
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Hi, I reply to this mail, because I have some remarks to Andrea's statements (see below). But please excuse, if I (as german) perhaps use not always the right english words/expressions/definitions.) But first: Norbert Thibaud has cleared the mathematical questions and shown, that statements like Petros 0^0 = 1 is NOT mathematically correct. are meaningless. 0^0 is a shortcut or symbol for something meaningfull in special cases or models. Mathematic is a set of theories that has (at least) 2 great sectors: Theoretical/pure mathematics and applied mathematics which are different in methodology. Pure models or theories are based on axioms and definitions. Axioms must be complete and not contradictory but are otherwise free. Definitions have to be reasonable (and helpfull). Statements/proofs (if derived correctly out of the axioms) are true only in the respective model. In other models they make no sense. As the definition of 0^0 = 1 is _not_ wrong and not unreasonable (false is a wrong category in this case), for me the problems reduces to: Are there more (and heavier) advantages than disadvantages when changing the behaviour in Calc? The whole line of OOo-versions (I have tested also with StarOffice 7 and 8, if necessary I can also test with V5.2 but I think it's not worth the time to install etc.) defines 0^0=1. So generations of Calc-Spreadsheets rely on this even if only a very few may explicitly use this features. On the other side only one advantage was cited: The compatibilty with Excel. For me, the backward-compatibility is worth more. (See also my comment to 5) below.) Am 13.02.2013 01:00, schrieb Andrea Pescetti: Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: The objective is to achieve consensus. I believe it is clear that there is no consensus on the proposed change and the proposal fails. I still have to see some credible arguments here, since most of the feedback was misplaced. What we learned so far is: 1) Nobody so far exhibited a spreadsheet that would be broken by the new behavior. Rob has one, which was even published, so I'm sure he can and Norbert has given another Example where the old definition allows to model the correct mathematical behaviour for x^y. And you forget the many generations of older spreadsheets. share it for everybody to have a look. Even better, we have a fantastic collection of Calc templates at http://templates.openoffice.org/en/taxonomy/term/3923 ; seeing one of those templates break would help. 2) Everybody feels the need to say something about 0 ^ 0, but threads like this one are not pleasant to read. If you have nothing to say, please don't say anything. And if you have a lot to say, please limit yourself to what's strictly needed. Especially, undoing a volunteer's work without some concrete (in ODF format, in this case!) reasons is something the project must avoid. Generally I agree with must avoid. But I did not see a discussion, if this change shouldt be done. 3) Mathematics and the standards are two different worlds. If a standard is mathematically wrong, change the standard and come back. That is false: The standard is mathematically correct. 4) We implement a standard, ODF. There 0 ^ 0 can legitimately be evaluated to 0, 1 or an error. 5) We read another standard, OOXML. There 0 ^ 0 can only be evaluated as an error; the fact that OpenOffice will evaluate 0 ^ 0 from a XLSX file to 1 is a bug. This is false: It is no bug! If Excel were the standard it would be true. And if, then calc must also implement the leap-year bug. (And I think nobody would want to implement such an error.) But true is, that Calc now is not Excel-compatibel in this case which leads to the core-question backwards-comp. vs. Excel comp.. 6) Anyone whose spreadsheets depend on 0 ^ 0 being evaluated to 1 (or to zero, or to an error for that matter) has entered the dangerous world of implementation-defined behavior: even if you save in a standard format I'm a little bit confused. Everthing in applications is implementation-defined what else? like ODF, your spreadsheet depends on a particular ODF implementation (e.g., on the specific version of OpenOffice you used). Also the change would be implementation-defined and the behaviour would shurely depend on the OOo-Version used. Based on 5 and 6 I would actually still believe that it's good to evaluate 0 ^ 0 to error (so that we fix the bug in 5 and we choose the most strict behavior in 6). But I fully agree with Marcus in saying this issue is much smaller than the discussion around it, so I can surely change my opinion if I finally see some real-world spreadsheets impacted by the change. When we have those, also Pedro will likely see reasons for reverting the change. In short: provide concrete examples and everybody will be happy. Making controverse changes against many good reasons if not somebody else proves that it is negative, is no good collaboration. I understand,
Re: [EXTENSIONS]: proposal to deprecate all extension snippets that are not packaged as oxt
On 2/8/13 11:16 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 06/02/2013 janI wrote: I assume (without really knowing it) that there is an easy upgrade path for extensions currently not being an oxt to become one. We need to document (if not already done) this upgrade in a way, that motivates the extension developers to do it. Same for me: enforcing OXT seems a good thing to do, and deprecating the old style in 4.0 gives the proper notice to users and developers. This assuming that it is straightforward to make an OXT package out of all to-be-deprecated snippets: we should include a link to the procedure in the release notes for 4.0. Regards, Andrea. it seems that nobody has stronger concerns against this proposal and I think no vote is necessary. I will draft a blog and a mail to our announce list that we will deprecate older package extensions with 4.0 and that we will support oxt packages only in the future. Keep in mind it will be an announcement only, nothing will change for 4.0 but potentially later for future releases. Just to inform extension developers in advance. Juergen
Re: Performance test comparisons
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 6:47 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving, and closing AndrewMacro.odt That's a big one: Release the Kraken! The time to close the document (not saving) could be low-hanging fruit. Presumably there is a free of a huge data structure to reclaim the heap. It would be interesting to see how many times we call free. When we had a similar problem in SmartSuite (many years ago) we solved it by using a custom memory allocator (overriding operator new). For allocations we managed our own heap, keeping related data structures together. I don't know if it is still a benefit today, but back then locality of reference was a big thing when it came to memory paging and caching. In any case when it came time to free the document, we did it trivially. Instead of doing the zillion free's to clean up the document data structures we called the global delete operator on the entire memory buffer, cleaning it up in a single call. The downside was this confused any tooks we used to look for memory leaks. Most of them looked at heap-level allocations and frees and reported a mismatch. So we had a debug version of the library as well, that was slower but did the memory management more traditionally. And we used the faster version for QA and production. -Rob LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc document... Not sure what they used, however. On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their 4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see if we could learn anything. I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware. Memory use (KB for soffice.bin): OOo 3.3.0:133,472 AOO 3.4.1: 129,928 LO 4.0: 165,796 Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads) OOo 3.3.0:16.0 AOO 3.4.1:20.9 LO 4.0: 23.7 Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance tests of OpenOffice? Regards, -Rob -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Performance test comparisons
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 3:42 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 13 February 2013 00:47, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.orgwrote: If you have a good setup for testing such things, try loading, saving, and closing AndrewMacro.odt LO claims that much of their improvements are related to large Calc documents. Might be nice to find and test their large test Calc document... Not sure what they used, however. On 02/12/2013 07:42 AM, Rob Weir wrote: I did some tests to see how we were doing, comparing AOO 3.4.1 on Windows against OOo 3.3.0. And since LibreOffice claims that their 4.0 release is much faster and leaner, I tested them as well, to see if we could learn anything. I just did a basic test, seeing how long it took to load a large text document, in this case the ODF 1.2 specification. I looked at memory consumed and the number of seconds to load. I loaded the document once to reduce the impact of disk caching and then repeated 5 times and took the average. All tests done on identical hardware. Memory use (KB for soffice.bin): OOo 3.3.0:133,472 AOO 3.4.1: 129,928 LO 4.0: 165,796 Load time for ODF 1.2 specification (seconds, average of 5 loads) OOo 3.3.0:16.0 AOO 3.4.1:20.9 LO 4.0: 23.7 Does anyone have any other good test documents for doing performance tests of OpenOffice? Regards, -Rob -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php Hi. If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our international version, An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment. I hope the strings are all packaged into read-only memory segments. If we do that then the OS should be able to demand-page them into the process when needed rather than hold them in memory. -Rob Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116 languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb. I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply --with-lang) Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the code, and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main memory. My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for performance, especially in regard to footprint. just my 2ct. rgds jan I
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple projects, e.g., AOO and LO. I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing code on a new page: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. Nice page, however I do not like We're not interested in large code-dumps., I would prefer if you wrote something like: OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Regards, -Rob Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can achieve the best result. When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). rgds Jan I. Thanks, -Rob
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html For larges codebases - For large codebases Don
Re: New page: Contributing Code
+1 I like the page. Is it also worth publishing somehow as a blog so outsiders notice it. I think you have a typo near the end VCS revision. Have a nice day. rgds Jan I. On 13 February 2013 15:52, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple projects, e.g., AOO and LO. I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing code on a new page: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. Nice page, however I do not like We're not interested in large code-dumps., I would prefer if you wrote something like: OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Regards, -Rob Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can achieve the best result. When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). rgds Jan I. Thanks, -Rob
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Hello;
Da: Norbert Thiebaud
...
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote:
On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote:
(OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list).
In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*:
In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a
series
of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most
importantly,
it is a constant.
Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed.
so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !)
d/dx X = 1.x^0
for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0.
I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent
restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument.
I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the
slope of the equation:
y =a*x + b
because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0.
In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is constructing
his own algebra,
The fact that you call 'Nicola Bourbaki' 'the author', is in itself
very telling about your expertise in Math.
I nicely put a link to the wikipedia page, since laymen are indeed
unlikely to know 'who' Borbaki is.
Do I really care if the name of the author is fictitious or real?
that get outside his set: 0^0 and x/0 are such cases. The text is not
a demonstration, it is simply a statement taken out of context.
You ask for a practical spreadsheet example, when one is given you
invent new 'rules' to ignore' it.
You haven't provided so far that practical spreadsheet.
You claim that 'real mathematician' consider 0^0=... NaN ? Error ?
And when I gave you the page and line from one of the most rigorous
mathematical body of work of the 20th century (yep Bourbaki... look it
up)
you and hand-wave, pretending the author did not mean it.. or even
better if this author(sic) *is* using mathematics correctly.
The thing is that you are taking statements out of context. I don't
claim being a mathematithian. I took a few courses from the career for fun.
In the case of set theory you can define, for your own purposes, a special
algebra where:
- You redefine your own multiplication operator (x).
- You don't define division.
- You make yor algebra system fit into a set of properties that
is useful for your own properties.
Once you define your own multiplication (which is not the same
multiplication supported in a spreadsheet) You work around the
issue in the power operator by defining the undefined case.
These are all nice mathematical models that don't apply to a spreadsheet.
I guess looking hard it may be possible to find an elaborated case where
someone manages to shoot himself in the foot
Sure, Leonard Euler, who introduced 0^0 = 1 circa 1740, was notorious
for shooting himself in the foot when doing math...
For those interested in the actual Math... in Math words have meaning
and that meaning have often context. let me develop a bit the notion
of 'form' mentioned earlier:
for instance in the expression 'in an indeterminate form', there is
'form' and it matter because in the context of determining extension
by continuity of a function, there are certain case where you can
transform you equation into another 'form' but if these transformation
lead you to an 'indeterminate form', you have to find another
transformation to continue...
hence h = f^g with f(x)-0 x-inf and g(x)-0 x-inf then -- once it
is establish that h actually converge in the operating set, and that
is another topic altogether -- lim h(x) x-0 = (lim f)^(lim g).
passing 'to the limit' in each term would yield 0^0 with is a
indeterminable 'form' (not a value, not a number, not claimed to be
the result of a calculation of power(0,0), but a 'form' of the
equation that is indeterminate...) at which point you cannot conclude,
what the limit is. What a mathematician is to do is to 'trans-form'
the original h in such a way that it lead him to a path to an actual
value.
in other words that is a very specific meaning for a very specific
subset of mathematics, that does not conflict with defining power(0,0)
= 1.
wrt to the 'context' of the quote I gave earlier:
Proposition 9: : Let X and Y be two sets, a and b their respective
cardinals, then the set X{superscript Y} has cardinal a {superscript
b}.
( I will use x^y here from now on to note x {superscript y} for readability )
Porposition 11: Let a be a cardinal. then a^0 = 1, a^1 = a, 1^a = 1;
and 0^a = 0 if a != 0
For there exist a unique mapping of 'empty-set' into any given set
(namely, the mapping whose graph is the empty set); the set of
mappings of a set consisting of a single element into an arbitrary set
X is equipotent to X (Chapter II, pragraph 5.3); there exist a unique
mapping of an arbitrary set into a set consisting of a single element;
and finally there is not mapping of a non-empty set into the
empty-set;
* Note in particular that 0^0 = 1
Again, I will
Re: New page: Contributing Code
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:05 AM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: +1 I like the page. Is it also worth publishing somehow as a blog so outsiders notice it. I think you have a typo near the end VCS revision. Thanks, I fixed that, the typo Don noted and a few other spelling errors I noticed. I agree that this could be a good blog topic. There is quite a bit of misinformation out there. For example, I've seen it written that to contribute to AOO means that you must transfer ownership of the code to teh ASF. Of course, this is not true. You retain the ownership (copyright) and merely agree to license your contribution. Even stranger I've seen some poor confused souls say that if you contribute to Apache you transfer ownership of the code over to Oracle! -Rob Have a nice day. rgds Jan I. On 13 February 2013 15:52, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:47 PM, janI j...@apache.org wrote: On 12 February 2013 23:19, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: We had a thread before Christmas discussing code contributions and best practices for how someone could contribute code to multiple projects, e.g., AOO and LO. I've written this up, along with more general remarks on contributing code on a new page: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Please take a look and let me know of any needed/recommended changes. Nice page, however I do not like We're not interested in large code-dumps., I would prefer if you wrote something like: OK. I rewrote this section to be more positive: http://openoffice.apache.org/contributing-code.html Regards, -Rob Integrating large code-dumps requires cooperation and cannot be done as a simple commit, therefore we urge you to contact us on how we commonly can achieve the best result. When I read the page, it sounds as if we are only interested in small code patches, and that cannot be correct. Of course if someone has written a function (maybe 1.000 lines), we are highly interested. If someone has written a complete new module (like a photo editor), then we need to talk. As an example my l10n tools are about 1.100 lines which I am sure is something we want (I know I am committer, but see it as an example). rgds Jan I. Thanks, -Rob
Starting Introduction to Contributing to Apache OpenOffice Module
hi all, I love computers and since the first personal one came to brazil I've been dealing with them. I played with BASIC on the old times . . . saw some assembly but I'm not a programmer - I don't like it. on the other hand I love to break the computer and fix. I cannot count how many times I broke windows - all, since 3.0 till win 7 64 bit (now) - and re installed, customizing and looking for ways to do things my way, not microsoft's. I had the opportunity to live in the US for 13 years, where I learned my English, working for GE, IBM, GM, homedepot among others, finally providence customer assistance for Pride, electric wheel chairs manufacturer. when I arrived at Miami I had an opportunity to work for a translation office sou I could do some translations. but basic I'd love to beta test openoffice, to help fix the bugs. I'm very dependable and if I don't know it, I keep my mouth shut . . . and for sure I'll look for help - to learn. I don't have anything to hide and I can answer any question - just ask. thank you for your time. truly tony
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there is NO way to make that function continuous on (0,0), let alone what happens when x 0... so the real question is: does it make sense to fill the hole on x^y? *My* answer (and that leads to the second point) is no because it do not give any added value. b) Considering that we are near to 90 messages on this thread it is quite clear that an agreement is not possible. On this situation it is also clear that choosing an error instead of a fixed value is the best bet. Just my 2¢ Regards Ricardo 2013/2/13 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Hello; Da: Norbert Thiebaud ... On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: (OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list). In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*: In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a series of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly, it is a constant. Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed. so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !) d/dx X = 1.x^0 for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0. I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument. I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the slope of the equation: y =a*x + b because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0. In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is constructing his own algebra, The fact that you call 'Nicola Bourbaki' 'the author', is in itself very telling about your expertise in Math. I nicely put a link to the wikipedia page, since laymen are indeed unlikely to know 'who' Borbaki is. Do I really care if the name of the author is fictitious or real? that get outside his set: 0^0 and x/0 are such cases. The text is not a demonstration, it is simply a statement taken out of context. You ask for a practical spreadsheet example, when one is given you invent new 'rules' to ignore' it. You haven't provided so far that practical spreadsheet. You claim that 'real mathematician' consider 0^0=... NaN ? Error ? And when I gave you the page and line from one of the most rigorous mathematical body of work of the 20th century (yep Bourbaki... look it up) you and hand-wave, pretending the author did not mean it.. or even better if this author(sic) *is* using mathematics correctly. The thing is that you are taking statements out of context. I don't claim being a mathematithian. I took a few courses from the career for fun. In the case of set theory you can define, for your own purposes, a special algebra where: - You redefine your own multiplication operator (x). - You don't define division. - You make yor algebra system fit into a set of properties that is useful for your own properties. Once you define your own multiplication (which is not the same multiplication supported in a spreadsheet) You work around the issue in the power operator by defining the undefined case. These are all nice mathematical models that don't apply to a spreadsheet. I guess looking hard it may be possible to find an elaborated case where someone manages to shoot himself in the foot Sure, Leonard Euler, who introduced 0^0 = 1 circa 1740, was notorious for shooting himself in the foot when doing math... For those interested in the actual Math... in Math words have meaning and that meaning have often context. let me develop a bit the notion of 'form' mentioned earlier: for instance in the expression 'in an indeterminate form', there is 'form' and it matter because in the context of determining extension by continuity of a function, there are certain case where you can transform you equation into another 'form' but if these transformation lead you to an 'indeterminate form', you have to find another transformation to continue... hence h = f^g with f(x)-0 x-inf and g(x)-0 x-inf then -- once it is establish that h actually converge in the operating set, and that is another topic altogether -- lim h(x) x-0 = (lim f)^(lim g). passing 'to the limit' in each term would yield 0^0 with is a indeterminable 'form' (not a value, not a number, not claimed to be the result of a calculation of power(0,0), but a 'form' of the equation that is indeterminate...) at which point you cannot conclude,
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
FWIW; - Messaggio originale - Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be complaining. :-P Pedro. [1] http://bikeshed.org Do it, do it, do it; PLEESSEEE. :-) Quaternions are cool. I think it is easy, and likely a nice exercise for someone wanting to start AOO development. Perhaps GSoC material. After that, how about interval arithmetic! I think that is even more fun! I don't know about that, sorry ;). Pedro.
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Thank you Ricardo; My suggestion would be to leave things as they are and give the matter a rest. I personally prefer to focus on other (more necessary) developments like updating python to version 2.7.4 which will be released this weekend. We have ample time for testing and if there is new information we can revise the issue before 4.0 is released. Pedro. Da: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com A: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Inviato: Mercoledì 13 Febbraio 2013 10:43 Oggetto: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there is NO way to make that function continuous on (0,0), let alone what happens when x 0... so the real question is: does it make sense to fill the hole on x^y? *My* answer (and that leads to the second point) is no because it do not give any added value. b) Considering that we are near to 90 messages on this thread it is quite clear that an agreement is not possible. On this situation it is also clear that choosing an error instead of a fixed value is the best bet. Just my 2¢ Regards Ricardo 2013/2/13 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Hello; Da: Norbert Thiebaud ... On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: (OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list). In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*: In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a series of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly, it is a constant. Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed. so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !) d/dx X = 1.x^0 for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0. I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument. I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the slope of the equation: y =a*x + b because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0. In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is constructing his own algebra, The fact that you call 'Nicola Bourbaki' 'the author', is in itself very telling about your expertise in Math. I nicely put a link to the wikipedia page, since laymen are indeed unlikely to know 'who' Borbaki is. Do I really care if the name of the author is fictitious or real? that get outside his set: 0^0 and x/0 are such cases. The text is not a demonstration, it is simply a statement taken out of context. You ask for a practical spreadsheet example, when one is given you invent new 'rules' to ignore' it. You haven't provided so far that practical spreadsheet. You claim that 'real mathematician' consider 0^0=... NaN ? Error ? And when I gave you the page and line from one of the most rigorous mathematical body of work of the 20th century (yep Bourbaki... look it up) you and hand-wave, pretending the author did not mean it.. or even better if this author(sic) *is* using mathematics correctly. The thing is that you are taking statements out of context. I don't claim being a mathematithian. I took a few courses from the career for fun. In the case of set theory you can define, for your own purposes, a special algebra where: - You redefine your own multiplication operator (x). - You don't define division. - You make yor algebra system fit into a set of properties that is useful for your own properties. Once you define your own multiplication (which is not the same multiplication supported in a spreadsheet) You work around the issue in the power operator by defining the undefined case. These are all nice mathematical models that don't apply to a spreadsheet. I guess looking hard it may be possible to find an elaborated case where someone manages to shoot himself in the foot Sure, Leonard Euler, who introduced 0^0 = 1 circa 1740, was notorious for shooting himself in the foot when doing math... For those interested in the actual Math... in Math words have meaning and that meaning have often context. let me develop a bit the notion of 'form' mentioned earlier: for instance in the expression 'in an indeterminate form', there is 'form' and it matter because in the context of determining extension by continuity of a function, there are certain case where you can transform you equation into another 'form' but if these transformation lead you to an 'indeterminate form',
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear, it's that changing away from the status quo currently enjoys zero consensus. As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki, all I can say is that line of argument is curious here. There are no authorities other than the spec to turn to about how you want POWER(0,0) to behave- as a function of 2 variables returning an error is probably best mathematically because the POWER function isn't remotely continuous at (0,0), but as part of an implementation of power series representations of sums involving 0^0, returning 1 is better. In any case, the idea for how issues like this should be resolved at Apache is always in favor of stability; that's why the impetus for consensus away from the current behavior is required, not a general discussion about which behavior is better given two equal choices in the abstract. A prior decision has already been made about the code, and those that wish to change it need to demonstrate consensus for the change, not the other way around. HTH From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there is NO way to make that function continuous on (0,0), let alone what happens when x 0... so the real question is: does it make sense to fill the hole on x^y? *My* answer (and that leads to the second point) is no because it do not give any added value. b) Considering that we are near to 90 messages on this thread it is quite clear that an agreement is not possible. On this situation it is also clear that choosing an error instead of a fixed value is the best bet. Just my 2¢ Regards Ricardo 2013/2/13 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Hello; Da: Norbert Thiebaud ... On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: (OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list). In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*: In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a series of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly, it is a constant. Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed. so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !) d/dx X = 1.x^0 for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0. I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument. I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the slope of the equation: y =a*x + b because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0. In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is constructing his own algebra, The fact that you call 'Nicola Bourbaki' 'the author', is in itself very telling about your expertise in Math. I nicely put a link to the wikipedia page, since laymen are indeed unlikely to know 'who' Borbaki is. Do I really care if the name of the author is fictitious or real? that get outside his set: 0^0 and x/0 are such cases. The text is not a demonstration, it is simply a statement taken out of context. You ask for a practical spreadsheet example, when one is given you invent new 'rules' to ignore' it. You haven't provided so far that practical spreadsheet. You claim that 'real mathematician' consider 0^0=... NaN ? Error ? And when I gave you the page and line from one of the most rigorous mathematical body of work of the 20th century (yep Bourbaki... look it up) you and hand-wave, pretending the author did not mean it.. or even better if this author(sic) *is* using mathematics correctly. The thing is that you are taking statements out of context. I don't claim being a mathematithian. I took a few courses from the career for fun. In the case of set theory you can define, for your own purposes, a special algebra where: - You redefine your own multiplication operator (x). - You don't define division. - You make yor algebra system fit into a set of properties that is useful for your own properties. Once you define your own multiplication (which is not the same multiplication supported in a spreadsheet) You work around the issue in the power operator by defining the undefined case. These are all nice mathematical models that don't apply to a spreadsheet. I
Interval arithmetic [was Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0]
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: FWIW; - Messaggio originale - Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be complaining. :-P Pedro. [1] http://bikeshed.org Do it, do it, do it; PLEESSEEE. :-) Quaternions are cool. I think it is easy, and likely a nice exercise for someone wanting to start AOO development. Perhaps GSoC material. After that, how about interval arithmetic! I think that is even more fun! I don't know about that, sorry ;). It could be used as a form of sensitivity analysis. A value in a spreadsheet might be a known value, like a sales tax rate, that is certain. But you also might have other values that are measurements with measurement error, or estimates with confidence levels. If you treat these unknowns as intervals then you can get some interesting results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_arithmetic Even better is to allow cells to have an associated distribution, e.g., normal with given mean and variance, uniform within a given interval, etc. If you also have the ability to define covariances between the variables then you can do a monte carlo simulation to determine the distribution of the result cells. Very powerful technique. Today, conceptually at least, a spreadsheet commonly has these different layers that are associated with each cell: 1) Contents, e.g., a number, string, formula, blank. 2) A value, e.g., the evaluation of the formula, or the value of a literal. 3) A format, e.g., currency 2 decimal places 4) A style, e.g., green background, bold text There is a lot we could do if we made it easy for extension authors to add more layers to a spreadsheet. For example, a layer for dimensions and units (meters, inches, foot-pounds/second, etc. ) would allow error checking for incorrectly mixing dimensions as well automatically converting units. So adding a cell containing seconds to one containing meters would be flagged as an error. But adding meters and feet might be permitted and a conversion factor automatically made. You could also imagine a layer for probability distribution, etc. There is no need for the core of Calc to understand the custom layers other than to respect them during editing operations, e.g., a cut and paste operation brings along contents, format, style, as well as any custom layer metadata. From the ODF perspective, this could all be done using ODF 1.2's RDF metadata capabilities. -Rob Pedro.
Re: Draft: Advice for Students page
On 11/02/2013 Rob Weir wrote: http://openoffice.apache.org/students.html ... Any other things that should be on the list? Nothing to add, good text. But I would link Let us know (first bullet point) and [have your professor] contact us (last one) to http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html#development-mailing-list-public or something like that, so that requests are not misplaced. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical veto on this change, which is really what's required before Pedro actually needs to revert anything. From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear, it's that changing away from the status quo currently enjoys zero consensus. As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki, all I can say is that line of argument is curious here. There are no authorities other than the spec to turn to about how you want POWER(0,0) to behave- as a function of 2 variables returning an error is probably best mathematically because the POWER function isn't remotely continuous at (0,0), but as part of an implementation of power series representations of sums involving 0^0, returning 1 is better. In any case, the idea for how issues like this should be resolved at Apache is always in favor of stability; that's why the impetus for consensus away from the current behavior is required, not a general discussion about which behavior is better given two equal choices in the abstract. A prior decision has already been made about the code, and those that wish to change it need to demonstrate consensus for the change, not the other way around. HTH From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there is NO way to make that function continuous on (0,0), let alone what happens when x 0... so the real question is: does it make sense to fill the hole on x^y? *My* answer (and that leads to the second point) is no because it do not give any added value. b) Considering that we are near to 90 messages on this thread it is quite clear that an agreement is not possible. On this situation it is also clear that choosing an error instead of a fixed value is the best bet. Just my 2¢ Regards Ricardo 2013/2/13 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Hello; Da: Norbert Thiebaud ... On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: (OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list). In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*: In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a series of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly, it is a constant. Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed. so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !) d/dx X = 1.x^0 for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0. I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument. I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the slope of the equation: y =a*x + b because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0. In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is constructing his own algebra, The fact that you call 'Nicola Bourbaki' 'the author', is in itself very telling about your expertise in Math. I nicely put a link to the wikipedia page, since laymen are indeed unlikely to know 'who' Borbaki is. Do I really care if the name of the author is fictitious or real? that get outside his set: 0^0 and x/0 are such cases. The text is not a demonstration, it is simply a statement taken out of context. You ask for a practical spreadsheet example, when one is given you invent new 'rules' to ignore' it. You haven't provided so far that practical spreadsheet. You claim that 'real mathematician' consider 0^0=... NaN ? Error ? And when I gave you the page and line from one of the most rigorous mathematical body of work of the 20th century (yep Bourbaki... look it up) you and hand-wave, pretending the author did not mean it.. or even better if this author(sic) *is* using mathematics correctly. The thing is that you are taking statements out of context. I don't claim being a mathematithian. I took a few courses from the career for fun. In the case of set theory you can define, for your own purposes, a special algebra where: - You redefine your own multiplication
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 9:53 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear, it's that changing away from the status quo currently enjoys zero consensus. As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki, all I can say is that line of argument is curious here. There are no authorities other than the spec to turn to about how you want POWER(0,0) to behave- as a function of 2 variables returning an error is probably best mathematically because the POWER function isn't remotely continuous at (0,0) Sure it is not continuous at 0,0 but the sign function is not either, that does not prevent sign(0) to be defined a 0 So continuity is not a necessary requirement. , but as part of an implementation of power series representations of sums involving 0^0, returning 1 is better. Indeed. I guess my point was : '0^0=1 is obviously(sic) mathematically wrong' is just non-sens. There are valid backward/cross-ward compatibility arguments, there are valid implementation/performance arguments. but the 'Mathematical correctness' argument (for either 1 or undefined) is completely bogus. Norbert
Re: Starting Introduction to Contributing to Apache OpenOffice Module
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 8:15 AM, tony fre colapa...@gmail.com wrote: hi all, Hi Tony, thanks for writing and welcome to the Apache OpenOffice project! I love computers and since the first personal one came to brazil I've been dealing with them. I played with BASIC on the old times . . . saw some assembly but I'm not a programmer - I don't like it. on the other hand I love to break the computer and fix. I cannot count how many times I broke windows - all, since 3.0 till win 7 64 bit (now) - and re installed, customizing and looking for ways to do things my way, not microsoft's. Oooh, you like breaking things? Then you might like our QA team. Our main focus in trying to find ways of breaking OpenOffice ;-) See: http://openoffice.apache.org/orientation/intro-qa.html I had the opportunity to live in the US for 13 years, where I learned my English, working for GE, IBM, GM, homedepot among others, finally providence customer assistance for Pride, electric wheel chairs manufacturer. when I arrived at Miami I had an opportunity to work for a translation office sou I could do some translations. but basic I'd love to beta test openoffice, to help fix the bugs. I'm very dependable and if I don't know it, I keep my mouth shut . . . and for sure I'll look for help - to learn. I don't have anything to hide and I can answer any question - just ask. We're happy to have any help you can provide in any project area that interests you. We have dedicated mailing lists for many project areas, like translation, QA, marketing, etc., so once you pick an area or areas that you find most interesting, you will want to sign up on their mailing lists: http://openoffice.apache.org/mailing-lists.html Regards, -Rob thank you for your time. truly tony
Re: [EXTENSIONS]: proposal to deprecate all extension snippets that are not packaged as oxt
Jürgen Schmidt wrote: it seems that nobody has stronger concerns against this proposal and I think no vote is necessary. I will draft a blog and a mail to our announce list that we will deprecate older package extensions with 4.0 and that we will support oxt packages only in the future. You may also want to check that the edit I made on this wiki page http://wiki.openoffice.org/w/index.php?title=Documentation%2FDevGuide%2FExtensions%2FFile_Formatdiff=214830oldid=198302 is correct and possibly improve it. Regards, Andrea.
Re: Completed Introduction to Contributing to Apache OpenOffice Module
Forwarding to Maarten who is not subscribed. Maarten: please go on and feel free to ask for advice if you need help with your first build. Andrea On 13/02/2013 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: Welcome. have you tried to build the source code yet? This may be a good starting place http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/Building_Guide_AOO On 02/12/2013 04:13 PM, Maarten Kesselaers wrote: Hello, My name is Maarten Kesselaers. I'm from Belgium and work as a project manager and EDI exchange expert. I used to code (Java, C++ and DOM) and helped other developers on forums, but I'm up to a new challenge. That's why I would like to help make AOO better. Kind regards, Maarten
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical veto on this change, which is really what's required before Pedro actually needs to revert anything. I was waiting to see if there were any persuasive arguments in favor of breaking backwards compatibility before deciding whether to do that. I think things are getting a little clearer now with Norbert's contribution to the discussion. But if (as it seems now) that mathematical correctness does not justify the change, then my position would be that we don't break backwards compatibility. Also, a veto would be a blunt instrument and I'd rather avoid it if further discussion leads to a consensus. -Rob From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear, it's that changing away from the status quo currently enjoys zero consensus. As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki, all I can say is that line of argument is curious here. There are no authorities other than the spec to turn to about how you want POWER(0,0) to behave- as a function of 2 variables returning an error is probably best mathematically because the POWER function isn't remotely continuous at (0,0), but as part of an implementation of power series representations of sums involving 0^0, returning 1 is better. In any case, the idea for how issues like this should be resolved at Apache is always in favor of stability; that's why the impetus for consensus away from the current behavior is required, not a general discussion about which behavior is better given two equal choices in the abstract. A prior decision has already been made about the code, and those that wish to change it need to demonstrate consensus for the change, not the other way around. HTH From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there is NO way to make that function continuous on (0,0), let alone what happens when x 0... so the real question is: does it make sense to fill the hole on x^y? *My* answer (and that leads to the second point) is no because it do not give any added value. b) Considering that we are near to 90 messages on this thread it is quite clear that an agreement is not possible. On this situation it is also clear that choosing an error instead of a fixed value is the best bet. Just my 2¢ Regards Ricardo 2013/2/13 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Hello; Da: Norbert Thiebaud ... On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: (OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list). In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*: In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a series of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly, it is a constant. Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed. so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !) d/dx X = 1.x^0 for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0. I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument. I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the slope of the equation: y =a*x + b because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0. In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is constructing his own algebra, The fact that you call 'Nicola Bourbaki' 'the author', is in itself very telling about your expertise in Math. I nicely put a link to the wikipedia page, since laymen are indeed unlikely to know 'who' Borbaki is. Do I really care if the name of the author is fictitious or real? that get outside his set: 0^0 and x/0 are such cases. The text is not a demonstration, it is simply a statement taken out of context. You ask for a practical spreadsheet example, when one is given you invent new 'rules' to ignore' it. You haven't provided so far that practical spreadsheet. You claim that 'real mathematician' consider
Implementation-defined behaviors in ODF spreadsheets
This topic seems to be of more general interest, given the discussions we've been having regarding the evaluation of 0^0. When we were writing up the specification of ODF 1.2's OpenFormula we had the goal to describe how real-world spreadsheet applications worked today. Where they worked the same then we wrote up in detail how they worked. Where there was variance among implementations then we tried to describe the bounds within which current applications behaved. So our work was mainly descriptive. There is not a stick big enough to force (at that time) Sun, Microsoft, IBM, Google as well as Gnumeric and KSpread (now Calligra) to change their implementations. This lead to a series of behaviors which were specified to be implementation-defined, or in some case locale-defined or unspecified. These are subtly different, and express nuances common in standards, what we refer to as dimensions of variability. The W3C has a note on the topic: http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/ But essentially, standardizers try to strike a balance between interoperability and cost to implement a standard. Even with physical standards, say for a screw or a bolt, there are tolerances give. The screw must have a length of 3cm +/- 0.1mm, for example. If the tolerance were set much higher then the cost to conform would skyrocket, but the incremental interop benefits would diminish. So the art of standardization the art of finding the right balance. This is political also, so it is also in the realm of the art of the possible in any given time and place. So when putting together OpenFormula I created a spreadsheet to collect together the 61 implementation-defined or unspecified behaviors in OpenFormula. If any is really interested in this area I'd recommend reviewing this spreadsheet. It is a lot easier/faster than reading the ODF 1.2 specification: http://markmail.org/thread/iz2gggmwednmchqe If we ever do go to a warning mode in Calc, where users are warned about potential calculation issues, these would probably be ones that we would check for. Regards, -Rob
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
I think the days of fruitful debate about this topic are well past us now. What this issue needs at this point is a decision one way or the other. There are several ways of doing that according to the general voting policies at Apache: exercising those procedures should not be viewed as blunt instruments but rather time-honored methods of obtaining clarity on what amounts to a perfect bikeshed issue where the spec provides no clear guidance one way or the other. From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical veto on this change, which is really what's required before Pedro actually needs to revert anything. I was waiting to see if there were any persuasive arguments in favor of breaking backwards compatibility before deciding whether to do that. I think things are getting a little clearer now with Norbert's contribution to the discussion. But if (as it seems now) that mathematical correctness does not justify the change, then my position would be that we don't break backwards compatibility. Also, a veto would be a blunt instrument and I'd rather avoid it if further discussion leads to a consensus. -Rob From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear, it's that changing away from the status quo currently enjoys zero consensus. As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki, all I can say is that line of argument is curious here. There are no authorities other than the spec to turn to about how you want POWER(0,0) to behave- as a function of 2 variables returning an error is probably best mathematically because the POWER function isn't remotely continuous at (0,0), but as part of an implementation of power series representations of sums involving 0^0, returning 1 is better. In any case, the idea for how issues like this should be resolved at Apache is always in favor of stability; that's why the impetus for consensus away from the current behavior is required, not a general discussion about which behavior is better given two equal choices in the abstract. A prior decision has already been made about the code, and those that wish to change it need to demonstrate consensus for the change, not the other way around. HTH From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there is NO way to make that function continuous on (0,0), let alone what happens when x 0... so the real question is: does it make sense to fill the hole on x^y? *My* answer (and that leads to the second point) is no because it do not give any added value. b) Considering that we are near to 90 messages on this thread it is quite clear that an agreement is not possible. On this situation it is also clear that choosing an error instead of a fixed value is the best bet. Just my 2¢ Regards Ricardo 2013/2/13 Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Hello; Da: Norbert Thiebaud ... On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 PM, Rob Weir rabas...@gmail.com wrote: On Feb 12, 2013, at 10:39 PM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: (OK, I guess it's better to re-subscribe to the list). In reply to Norbert Thiebaud*: In the Power rule, which *is* commonly used for differentiation, we take a series of polinomials where n !=0. n is not only different than zero, most importantly, it is a constant. Power Rule : d/dx x^n = n.x^(n-1) for n != 0 indeed. so for n=1 (which _is_ different of 0 !) d/dx X = 1.x^0 for _all_ x. including x=0. (last I check f(x) = x is differentiable in 0. I know math can be challenging... but you don't get to invent restriction on the Power Rule just to fit you argument. I will put it in simple terms. You are saying that you can't calculate the slope of the equation: y =a*x + b because in the process you need to calculate the value of x^0. In the case of the set theory book, do note that the author is
Re: Updating Java libraries
Relying on jars, IMHO, is not bad, but it depends on your goals. The point of compiling from source is that it's a first step to actually being a developer which is why I do it. Compiling problems aren't problems for us new developers they are puzzles to solve to help people out. If there are changes needed to the jars, we need to recompile. For a build where I don't modify the jar, I'd prefer to just fetch it b/c it's way faster. Also, where does compiling from source end. That is, we all rely on someone else's compiling some of our software (unless our name is Theo, I guess). :) Fred On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: Hi Michael, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:59:02PM -0500, Michael Lam wrote: On 02/12/2013 12:01 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:35PM -0500, Michael Lam wrote: I have updated the external_deps.lst with the updated hsqldb information. If someone can give me some pointer into how to just retrieve the jar instead of the source You don't retrieve precompiled stuff. The logic is: a) don't include the dependency at all b) include the dependency b.1) build it from source b.2) use the precompiled version in the system (this switch is only for external packagers, the builds are release with no system [configurable] dependencies). Regards I am still a little confused. Obviously it is possible to build from source but as a lot of email on the list have shown it could cause issues with the build that is not directly related to the AOO code. Why not just retrieve the jar so the build is inclusive? I don't know what motivated these rules, but I guess it was something in the lines of having control about what is being compiled and how it is being compiled (the use of the compiler, the Java base line, etc.). 35 million of downloads are worth not relaying on a jar built by someone else and, instead, build it from sources. I am used to retrieving compiled jars on the projects I worked on, in Java there is maven and ivy to retrieve specific version of the jar that the project is tested on along with the dependencies. But it is still trusting in a binary built by someone else. Every project is free to trust or build from sources. Historically, OpenOffice builds from external sources and includes these binaries in its releases, it has no external dependencies (other than the system libraries). The configure switches that allow building with system libraries/jars are only supported on *nix, and even there they are not relaying on a jar built by someone else: Linux distributions, for example, build all their jars; why do they build all by themselves instead of fetching compiled jars? I've no idea, but I guess they follow the same criteria mentioned above (as a Linux user you can use Maven in your projects, but it won't modify the system's jars). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Building with --without-system-serf
I've been busy with building lately, especially with building on Fedora 18 with the --with-system-libs switch, which should be used for packaging in Fedora. This is preparation work for the Fedora 19 packaging. To isolate the problematic dependencies, I configure with something like ./configure --with-system-libs --without-system-NAME1 --without-system-NAME2 [...] The effect in general is that the without switch overrides the generic --with-system-libs. So for example ./configure --with-system-libs --without-system-libxslt won't use the system library. Now, some libraries use a different convention: ./configure --with-system-libs --without-system-serf will still use the system library and not override the generic choice. You can see the different patterns in http://svn.apache.org/viewvc/openoffice/trunk/main/configure.in?view=markup (4002-4003 for the former pattern, 4579 for the latter) Any technical reasons for that? Otherwise I'll assume lazy consensus and modify configure.in to use the former pattern consistently, at least in the cases where I need it. The patch would be a variant of: -if test x$with_system_serf = xyes -o -n $with_system_libs; then +if test -n $with_system_serf -o -n $with_system_libs \ + test $with_system_serf != no; then Regards, Andrea.
[BZ] Change strings with OOo on the BZ startpage
Hi BZ admins, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ May I suggest some little string changes on the BZ startpage: HTML title -- Currently: Apache OOo Bugzilla Main Page New: Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla Main Page Headline Currently: Welcome to Apache OOo Bugzilla New: Welcome to Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla Link somewhat below the hreadline - Currently: Apache OOo Bugzilla User's Guide New: Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla User's Guide On the top and bottom of every page (are these the header and footer?) there are other strings with OOo that should be changed, too. Thanks Marcus
[BUILD PROBLEM] Fail on JPropex build.xml line 122 \\ Error 65280
My build just crashed on the build.xml under ./main/l10ntools/java/jpropex/ at line 122 : 122classpathref=classpath So I guess I need to set a CLASSPATH, right? To which directory should it be set? Thanks for your help, Regards, Maarten
Re: [BZ] Change strings with OOo on the BZ startpage
On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 4:24 PM, Marcus (OOo) marcus.m...@wtnet.de wrote: Hi BZ admins, https://issues.apache.org/ooo/ May I suggest some little string changes on the BZ startpage: HTML title -- Currently: Apache OOo Bugzilla Main Page New: Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla Main Page Headline Currently: Welcome to Apache OOo Bugzilla New: Welcome to Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla Link somewhat below the hreadline - Currently: Apache OOo Bugzilla User's Guide New: Apache OpenOffice (AOO) Bugzilla User's Guide On the top and bottom of every page (are these the header and footer?) there are other strings with OOo that should be changed, too. These all look like reasonable changes, but I don't see them as configuration items in the BZ admin tools available to us. The only text from the homepage that I can change from the admin tool is the message in the box: Please Note: All users with accounts with the legacy OpenOffice.org issue tracker... So we'll probably need to open an JIRA issue with Infra to get this updated. -Rob Thanks Marcus
Re: Performance test comparisons
On 13 February 2013 22:06, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 09:42:42AM +0100, janI wrote: If performance and memory footprint is a concern, we loose a lot in our international version, An average set of language text takes up 1.3Mb in the code segment. Since we release 8 languages, it would be expected to use about 10Mb However, due to the way localize_sl works, we actually include all 116 languages from extras/l10n. Meaining the footprint is about 150Mb. I am sure this difference affect, download time, start up time as well as running swap space (on ubuntu 12.04. And at the same time it is something that a simple if could correct (dont use all languages, but simply --with-lang) Ps. due to the fact that it is scattered in small pieces over the code, and at least one language is in use, it will effectively also be in main memory. My conclusion is that neither AOO nor LO, is only partial optimized for performance, especially in regard to footprint. I don't understand what you are talking about, it looks like you are mixing what happens during building the product, with the final product. The final product, as can be downloaded from the final, in his language, contain only resource for his language. Resources are located in BASIS_DIR/program/resource/, there you'll only find a binary resource file per module for the language the user downloaded; for example, if I downloaded the Spanish version cuies.res dbaes.res etc. Look the contents of cuies.res with a hex editor, you'll find only Spanish strings. Even if the user installs several language packs, the application only loads the resources for the application language, selected on the Options dialog (build main/tools/source/rc/resmgr.cxx with debug, and look at the OSL_TRACE). Somehow I am a lot more confused now. If all text end up as .res files, there should be no reason to have all those different file formats we currently use. If would be sooo much simpler to have a file format for all text. Are you also sure, that the en-US language is removed, I thought that was builtin and did not depend on external files. I will try to make a fresh install with a 3.4.1 image instead of from my compiled version. I also have to find the point in the build process, where the languages are removed again, because looking at the source files in unxlng../misc they do contain all language (which is what localize_sl does). But its fun to do step by step learning of how the build process really works compared to the documentation :-) rgds Jan I. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
FWIW I refreshed my memory about how to compute polynomials numerically by looking back at my old copy of Numerical Recipes in C and it's always considered bad form to evaluate the terms individually, especially not by using the POWER function to do it. Most of the time you want to compute p = c[0] x^0 + ... + c[n] x^n by doing p = c[j=n]; while (j 0) p = p*x + c[--j]; which does the right thing and pulls out c[0] when x=0. Obviously there are overflow issues to deal with for large degree polynomials and large values of x, but you get the idea. The book also contains methods for dealing with infinite power series as well, but I think the key observation is that you want polynomials with integer coefficients to evaluate to an exact integer when dealing with integer values of x. If POWER(n,m) is always guaranteed to do that, then I can see why you'd use that in your spreadsheet app, even if it isn't what a numerical analyst would recommend off the top of her head. IOW what I'm saying is that the choice to use POWER() in evaluating polynomials and infinite series in spreadsheets is a CHOICE, the fact that x^0 = 1 for all values of x doesn't have to weigh in to your deliberations about what the right value is for POWER(0,0) unless you insist in supporting the evaluation of polynomialexpressions using the POWER function. From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:43 PM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 I think the days of fruitful debate about this topic are well past us now. What this issue needs at this point is a decision one way or the other. There are several ways of doing that according to the general voting policies at Apache: exercising those procedures should not be viewed as blunt instruments but rather time-honored methods of obtaining clarity on what amounts to a perfect bikeshed issue where the spec provides no clear guidance one way or the other. From: Rob Weir robw...@apache.org To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 12:30 PM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:56 AM, Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com wrote: OTOH I haven't seen anyone issue a technical veto on this change, which is really what's required before Pedro actually needs to revert anything. I was waiting to see if there were any persuasive arguments in favor of breaking backwards compatibility before deciding whether to do that. I think things are getting a little clearer now with Norbert's contribution to the discussion. But if (as it seems now) that mathematical correctness does not justify the change, then my position would be that we don't break backwards compatibility. Also, a veto would be a blunt instrument and I'd rather avoid it if further discussion leads to a consensus. -Rob From: Joe Schaefer joe_schae...@yahoo.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:53 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Honestly I'd say that if anything is clear, it's that changing away from the status quo currently enjoys zero consensus. As a Ph.D. mathematician who knows about Bourbaki, all I can say is that line of argument is curious here. There are no authorities other than the spec to turn to about how you want POWER(0,0) to behave- as a function of 2 variables returning an error is probably best mathematically because the POWER function isn't remotely continuous at (0,0), but as part of an implementation of power series representations of sums involving 0^0, returning 1 is better. In any case, the idea for how issues like this should be resolved at Apache is always in favor of stability; that's why the impetus for consensus away from the current behavior is required, not a general discussion about which behavior is better given two equal choices in the abstract. A prior decision has already been made about the code, and those that wish to change it need to demonstrate consensus for the change, not the other way around. HTH From: RGB ES rgb.m...@gmail.com To: dev@openoffice.apache.org; Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org Sent: Wednesday, February 13, 2013 10:43 AM Subject: Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0 Not answering any particular message, so top posting. Two points: a) Of course you can always redefine a function to fill holes on non defined points: for example, redefining sinc(x) = sin(x)/x to be 1 on x=0 makes sense because you obtain a continuous function... but that's on 1 variable: when you go to two variables things become more difficult. In fact, the limit for x^y with x *and* y tending to zero do NOT exists (choose a different path and you'll get a different limit), then there
Re: Interval arithmetic [was Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0]
On 02/13/2013 11:14 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 10:43 AM, Pedro Giffuni p...@apache.org wrote: FWIW; - Messaggio originale - Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak Of course, had I implemented quaternion math using Boost, no one would be complaining. :-P Pedro. [1] http://bikeshed.org Do it, do it, do it; PLEESSEEE. :-) Quaternions are cool. I think it is easy, and likely a nice exercise for someone wanting to start AOO development. Perhaps GSoC material. After that, how about interval arithmetic! I think that is even more fun! I don't know about that, sorry ;). It could be used as a form of sensitivity analysis. A value in a spreadsheet might be a known value, like a sales tax rate, that is certain. But you also might have other values that are measurements with measurement error, or estimates with confidence levels. If you treat these unknowns as intervals then you can get some interesting results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interval_arithmetic Even better is to allow cells to have an associated distribution, e.g., normal with given mean and variance, uniform within a given interval, etc. If you also have the ability to define covariances between the variables then you can do a monte carlo simulation to determine the distribution of the result cells. Very powerful technique. Today, conceptually at least, a spreadsheet commonly has these different layers that are associated with each cell: 1) Contents, e.g., a number, string, formula, blank. 2) A value, e.g., the evaluation of the formula, or the value of a literal. 3) A format, e.g., currency 2 decimal places 4) A style, e.g., green background, bold text There is a lot we could do if we made it easy for extension authors to add more layers to a spreadsheet. For example, a layer for dimensions and units (meters, inches, foot-pounds/second, etc. ) would allow error checking for incorrectly mixing dimensions as well automatically converting units. So adding a cell containing seconds to one containing meters would be flagged as an error. But adding meters and feet might be permitted and a conversion factor automatically made. You could also imagine a layer for probability distribution, etc. There is no need for the core of Calc to understand the custom layers other than to respect them during editing operations, e.g., a cut and paste operation brings along contents, format, style, as well as any custom layer metadata. Sadly, I expect it would be difficult to pull-off, but, if you did, then you could use that for all sorts of things; intervals, complex numbers, etc. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Starting Introduction to Contributing to Apache OpenOffice Module
On 02/13/2013 08:15 AM, tony fre wrote: hi all, I love computers and since the first personal one came to brazil I've been dealing with them. I played with BASIC on the old times . . . saw some assembly but I'm not a programmer - I don't like it. on the other hand I love to break the computer and fix. I cannot count how many times I broke windows - all, since 3.0 till win 7 64 bit (now) - and re installed, customizing and looking for ways to do things my way, not microsoft's. I had the opportunity to live in the US for 13 years, where I learned my English, working for GE, IBM, GM, homedepot among others, finally providence customer assistance for Pride, electric wheel chairs manufacturer. when I arrived at Miami I had an opportunity to work for a translation office sou I could do some translations. but basic I'd love to beta test openoffice, to help fix the bugs. I'm very dependable and if I don't know it, I keep my mouth shut . . . and for sure I'll look for help - to learn. I don't have anything to hide and I can answer any question - just ask. thank you for your time. truly tony The documentation team can use help. Rob already mentioned the QA team. Just for fun, you might even consider building the source once. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Implementation-defined behaviors in ODF spreadsheets
Awesome! On 02/13/2013 12:43 PM, Rob Weir wrote: This topic seems to be of more general interest, given the discussions we've been having regarding the evaluation of 0^0. When we were writing up the specification of ODF 1.2's OpenFormula we had the goal to describe how real-world spreadsheet applications worked today. Where they worked the same then we wrote up in detail how they worked. Where there was variance among implementations then we tried to describe the bounds within which current applications behaved. So our work was mainly descriptive. There is not a stick big enough to force (at that time) Sun, Microsoft, IBM, Google as well as Gnumeric and KSpread (now Calligra) to change their implementations. This lead to a series of behaviors which were specified to be implementation-defined, or in some case locale-defined or unspecified. These are subtly different, and express nuances common in standards, what we refer to as dimensions of variability. The W3C has a note on the topic: http://www.w3.org/TR/spec-variability/ But essentially, standardizers try to strike a balance between interoperability and cost to implement a standard. Even with physical standards, say for a screw or a bolt, there are tolerances give. The screw must have a length of 3cm +/- 0.1mm, for example. If the tolerance were set much higher then the cost to conform would skyrocket, but the incremental interop benefits would diminish. So the art of standardization the art of finding the right balance. This is political also, so it is also in the realm of the art of the possible in any given time and place. So when putting together OpenFormula I created a spreadsheet to collect together the 61 implementation-defined or unspecified behaviors in OpenFormula. If any is really interested in this area I'd recommend reviewing this spreadsheet. It is a lot easier/faster than reading the ODF 1.2 specification: http://markmail.org/thread/iz2gggmwednmchqe If we ever do go to a warning mode in Calc, where users are warned about potential calculation issues, these would probably be ones that we would check for. Regards, -Rob -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Performance test comparisons
On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:38:57AM +0100, janI wrote: I don't understand what you are talking about, it looks like you are mixing what happens during building the product, with the final product. The final product, as can be downloaded from the final, in his language, contain only resource for his language. Resources are located in BASIS_DIR/program/resource/, there you'll only find a binary resource file per module for the language the user downloaded; for example, if I downloaded the Spanish version cuies.res dbaes.res etc. Look the contents of cuies.res with a hex editor, you'll find only Spanish strings. Even if the user installs several language packs, the application only loads the resources for the application language, selected on the Options dialog (build main/tools/source/rc/resmgr.cxx with debug, and look at the OSL_TRACE). Somehow I am a lot more confused now. If all text end up as .res files, Not all strings. Strings in src files, do. Strings in xcu files, don't. See the UI commands, for example /main/officecfg/unxlngx6/misc/merge/org/openoffice/Office/UI/GenericCommands.xcu there should be no reason to have all those different file formats we currently use. If would be sooo much simpler to have a file format for all text. IMHO it would be better to use the approach that is currently used with Basic dialogs: plain text files with a format à la java properties file. This would allow localizers to modify strings in plain text files in their installation and see the live result, no need to wait for a build. Are you also sure, that the en-US language is removed, I thought that was builtin and did not depend on external files. I will try to make a fresh install with a 3.4.1 image instead of from my compiled version. Just download any full localized install set from http://www.openoffice.org/download/other.html#tested-full In the program/resource folder you'll find only strings for the downloaded language. I also have to find the point in the build process, where the languages are removed again, because looking at the source files in unxlng../misc they do contain all language (which is what localize_sl does). Take for example trunk/main/cui. In cui/unxlngx6/srs/*.srs you have the processed src file, with all available localized strings In cui/unxlngx6/bin/ you have a binary *.res file for every language in --with-lang, cuien-US.res is the default. Compare it with cuies.res, the later has only es localized strings, this res file is the one included in the es full install set. But its fun to do step by step learning of how the build process really works compared to the documentation :-) It easier to build with --html and look at the logs, this might give some insight how src files are transformed to srs, and the srs compiled to res files (search for rscdep, transex3 and rsc in the logs). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgp3N3qG67NFq.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
On 02/13/2013 02:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the development work I intended to do on Calc as I have lost all interest on improving it given the current situation. I totally understand. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
- Messaggio originale - Da: Joe Schaefer FWIW I refreshed my memory about how to compute polynomials numerically by looking back at my old copy of Numerical Recipes in C and it's always considered bad form to evaluate the terms individually, especially not by using the POWER function to do it. Most of the time you want to compute p = c[0] x^0 + ... + c[n] x^n by doing p = c[j=n]; while (j 0) p = p*x + c[--j]; which does the right thing and pulls out c[0] when x=0. Obviously there are overflow issues to deal with for large degree polynomials and large values of x, but you get the idea. Ah yes, that's an old numerical trick when n is an integer. The non-integer case is, of course, more interesting ;). What I was noting in a previous reply (to Norbert) is that you actually never even write x^0, you just write: p = c[0] + c[1] x^1 + ... + c[n] x^n so when calculating the derivative (using the power rule) you completely ignore the first term as it's a waste of time (the derivate of a constant is 0). It somewhat silly (and a waste of time) to write POWER($A1, 0) in a spreadsheet where 0 ^ 0 is 1. My HP Calculator does have a valid reason for setting 0 ^ 0 =1, but it doesn't apply to a spreadsheet so I will leave at that :-P. Pedro.
Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0
- Messaggio originale - Da: Andrew Douglas Pitonyak ... On 02/13/2013 02:46 PM, Pedro Giffuni wrote: Independently of the vote result I will be effectively stopping the development work I intended to do on Calc as I have lost all interest on improving it given the current situation. I totally understand. It is sort of sad as I think Calc can certainly be improved with a lot of the things that are finely implemented in Boost. On the other hand, most of what I was planning to do is already in gnumeric, so maybe it was a waste of my time to re-implement it ;). Pedro.
Re: Tutorial About
Hi Jorge, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 07:27:05PM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote: Hello Ariel, I did the steps you said, the compilation was successful, I made two copies too. Now when I click the button about not the message. And another point the basis that I have is the basis3.4. Are you building with sources checked out using subversion/git-svn? If so, you need to update your working copy, revision 1442743 updated the version number from 3.5 to 4.0 (quite strange you have 3.4). Configure with --with-package-format=installed It will generate an installation in main/instsetoo_native/unxlngx6/Apache_OpenOffice/installed/install/en-US/ Copy the two directories there to your $HOME This in-build installation uses its own user profile, you can play with it without overwriting any existing configuration. You can also customize the user directory by modifying $HOME/apache_openoffice4/program/bootstraprc, the line UserInstallation=$ORIGIN/../.apacheopenoffice/4 Instead unxlngx6 I have a unxlngi6.pro .pro means a product build. You can build a non-product build, see http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Non_Product_Build Configure with --enable-dbgutil How I can do a debug mode? Usually you build the modules you are interested in with debug switch. If the module is ported to gbuild (you know this because in the module folder there is a Module_module.mk, like framework/Module_framework.mk): touch the files you want tor recompile with debugging symbols, or simply clean the whole module: cd main/framework touch some_file or make -sr DEBUG=yes clean then build with debug: make -sr DEBUG=yes You'll find the framework libraries in main/solver/400/unxlngx6/workdir/LinkTarget/Library/lifw*.so Copy the library to $HOME/apacheopenoffice/basis4.0/program/ If the module is not ported to gbuild the output is in the same folder, and then copied to the solver: cd cui rm -rf unxlngx6/ build debug=true dbglevel=3 -- -P2 deliver The libraries are in main/module/unxlngx6/lib/. Note that you need to configure with --disable-strip-solver because, if not, the libraries are stripped before delivering them to the solver. Once you have compiled with debug, launch OpenOffice and attach the debugger, a way of doing this: in on terminal $HOME/apache_openoffice/program/soffice in another terminal gdb attach `pgrep soffice.bin` Set a break point, and continue, for example: break AboutDialog::AboutDialog c Where I can find more information about the debug mode? I'm not sure if there is something in the wiki. Where there is more current tutorials that this tutorial about? AFAIK there are no up-to-date development tutorials. I guess developers don't like writing documentation, it would imply maintaining the source code and the tutorial as the source code gets modified... Where I can find more tutorials updated to make them? May be it's better to pick up an easy bug, and try to fix it. Now that you've been in the cui module, take for example https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121706 This is my tutorial to get started with this bug (you may find the tips useful for other cases): - Open a new Writer document - select the menu Format - AutoCorrect - AutoCorrect Options... - select the tab Word Completion The bug is about the number of max. entries, the last metric field in that tab page. We are going to find where that metric field is defined. For this, let's search for the whole tab page definition, using one of the strings. To start investigating, search in opengrok for a string (you must have the user interface in English, so that you see English strings in order to find them in .src files). For example, Enable word ~completion (the string ~Max. entries might be not quite unique). http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/search?q=%22Enable+word+~completion%22defs=refs=path=hist=project=aoo-trunk With the AboutDialog example, you have learnt that the dialog structure is defined in a *.src file, so dismiss all the results, looking only for a file with extension src http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/search?q=%22Enable+word+~completion%22defs=refs=path=srchist=project=aoo-trunk /aoo-trunk/main/cui/source/tabpages/ H A D autocdlg.src709 Text [ en-US ] = Enable word ~completion; Now you know that trunk/main/cui/source/tabpages/autocdlg.src is your starting point. TabDialog RID_OFA_AUTOCORR_DLG defines the structure of the whole tab dialog. PageItem RID_OFAPAGE_AUTOCOMPLETE_OPTIONS is the AutoCorrect tab page. Dialogs and controls are identified by its IDs, so look for RID_OFAPAGE_AUTOCOMPLETE_OPTIONS in trunk/main/cui/source/tabpages/autocdlg.src and you'll find the tab page definition: TabPage RID_OFAPAGE_AUTOCOMPLETE_OPTIONS In the tab page definition, look for the metric field control: NumericField NF_MAX_ENTRIES The name of the ID suggests this is the control to investigate. In fact, it has the values: 795 Value = 500 ; 796 Maximum =
Releasing incompatible changes
Prior to working with AOO, I thought that there was a widely-known and generally accepted methodology for releasing incompatible changes. However, the problem has surfaced here three times: once last spring (encryption default), and twice currently (0⁰, and extensions with toolbars). I want to try to separate the how we release it from the should we do it and the technical details. The two key points of the method I'm used to are (1) long lead time, and (2) parallel operation. Introducing a new way and deprecating an old one are not really disruptive. The disruption comes when support for the old way is dropped, and something doesn't work any more. Hence, new ways and deprecations can be issued at any minor release, and the sooner the better. However, for an organization with so large a following as ours, we need to allow a lead time of an entire major release (though circumstances may vary) before dropping support. As an example, for the extensions change, we should say something like, A new method of handling toolbars [link] is provided in AOO 4.0. The old method is deprecated, and support may be dropped as soon as AOO 5.0. Extension developers should provide two versions, using MAX_VER and MIN_VER ... [Please excuse my ignorance, here.] Ariel is quite correct to point out that this parallelism doesn't come for free: it can involve a messy piece of code to be maintained. However, two points: (a) maintenance in the area should be near zero for the life of the lead time (unless the area is a target for new features), and (b) shouldn't we (developers) be doing the hard work, so our downstream folks have it easier? Providing parallelism for the Calc 0⁰ problem should be easy enough, while deferring our proposed change to 5.0. (I favor the change, but not so suddenly!) HTH, /tj/
Re: Updating Java libraries
On 02/13/2013 12:48 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: Relying on jars, IMHO, is not bad, but it depends on your goals. The point of compiling from source is that it's a first step to actually being a developer which is why I do it. Compiling problems aren't problems for us new developers they are puzzles to solve to help people out. If there are changes needed to the jars, we need to recompile. For a build where I don't modify the jar, I'd prefer to just fetch it b/c it's way faster. Also, where does compiling from source end. That is, we all rely on someone else's compiling some of our software (unless our name is Theo, I guess). :) Fred On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 7:28 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: Hi Michael, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 09:59:02PM -0500, Michael Lam wrote: On 02/12/2013 12:01 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:35PM -0500, Michael Lam wrote: I have updated the external_deps.lst with the updated hsqldb information. If someone can give me some pointer into how to just retrieve the jar instead of the source You don't retrieve precompiled stuff. The logic is: a) don't include the dependency at all b) include the dependency b.1) build it from source b.2) use the precompiled version in the system (this switch is only for external packagers, the builds are release with no system [configurable] dependencies). Regards I am still a little confused. Obviously it is possible to build from source but as a lot of email on the list have shown it could cause issues with the build that is not directly related to the AOO code. Why not just retrieve the jar so the build is inclusive? I don't know what motivated these rules, but I guess it was something in the lines of having control about what is being compiled and how it is being compiled (the use of the compiler, the Java base line, etc.). 35 million of downloads are worth not relaying on a jar built by someone else and, instead, build it from sources. I am used to retrieving compiled jars on the projects I worked on, in Java there is maven and ivy to retrieve specific version of the jar that the project is tested on along with the dependencies. But it is still trusting in a binary built by someone else. Every project is free to trust or build from sources. Historically, OpenOffice builds from external sources and includes these binaries in its releases, it has no external dependencies (other than the system libraries). The configure switches that allow building with system libraries/jars are only supported on *nix, and even there they are not relaying on a jar built by someone else: Linux distributions, for example, build all their jars; why do they build all by themselves instead of fetching compiled jars? I've no idea, but I guess they follow the same criteria mentioned above (as a Linux user you can use Maven in your projects, but it won't modify the system's jars). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina Thank you for the explanation. For now I will stick to the current setup and make couple more changes but I would like my idea to be consider in the future. It is true for most long running system that some of the why certain decisions were made is lost and I am quite sure there were/are legitimate reasons. It would just helpful to know instead of doing the same thing just because. As far as trust, that is interesting in this context since I would be fetching from the source and given that the project is using the third party code in such a integral way that I would think the trust is implicit.
missing commit log
can I append a missing commit log? I committed r1446039 on command line okay, but r1446040and r1446041 using netbeans I missed the message: Added IT localization files Patch by: Fabrizio Marchesano fmarches...@gmail.com Review by: GianAngelo Cencio gacen...@gmail.com Thanks, Carl
Re: missing commit log
Hi Carl, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:38:44PM -0500, Carl Marcum wrote: can I append a missing commit log? I don't use subversion, but IIRC I've seen a commit from someone changing a log; if true, this might work: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/304383/how-do-i-edit-a-log-message-that-i-already-committed-in-subversion The answer with 26 votes says that you can try the command anyway, if it is not set up in the server, anything will happen. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpAtpCErA0Kx.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: missing commit log
Yes editing svn:log revprops is admissible and done routinely. From: Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 12:24 AM Subject: Re: missing commit log Hi Carl, On Wed, Feb 13, 2013 at 11:38:44PM -0500, Carl Marcum wrote: can I append a missing commit log? I don't use subversion, but IIRC I've seen a commit from someone changing a log; if true, this might work: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/304383/how-do-i-edit-a-log-message-that-i-already-committed-in-subversion The answer with 26 votes says that you can try the command anyway, if it is not set up in the server, anything will happen. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina
