Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
We can't really change the embedded DB, only add a new implementation - compatibility with previous ODB files needs to be kept for a long long time. Damjan On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting. I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base. It essentially depends on how important SQL is. And of course, it would be just to furnish a default built-in DBMS. - Dennis Small. Fast. Reliable. Choose any three. I love the brass! http://sqlite.org/ -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? [ ... ] You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Good point. So even if there were a replacement, there would need to be legacy interop. That's probably an interesting challenge to avoid with Base. So, we're back to the previously unanswered problem with regard to support of HSQLDB and rotting bits (and version-specific Java dependencies) in Base. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:dam...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 00:17 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? We can't really change the embedded DB, only add a new implementation - compatibility with previous ODB files needs to be kept for a long long time. Damjan On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.orgwrote: The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting. I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base. It essentially depends on how important SQL is. And of course, it would be just to furnish a default built-in DBMS. - Dennis Small. Fast. Reliable. Choose any three. I love the brass! http://sqlite.org/ -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? [ ... ] You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton dennis.hamil...@acm.org wrote: Good point. So even if there were a replacement, there would need to be legacy interop. yes...somehow That's probably an interesting challenge to avoid with Base. So, we're back to the previously unanswered problem with regard to support of HSQLDB and rotting bits (and version-specific Java dependencies) in Base. Much investigation would need to be done with respect to the interface vs data store. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:dam...@apache.org] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 00:17 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? We can't really change the embedded DB, only add a new implementation - compatibility with previous ODB files needs to be kept for a long long time. Damjan On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton orc...@apache.org wrote: The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting. I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base. It essentially depends on how important SQL is. And of course, it would be just to furnish a default built-in DBMS. - Dennis Small. Fast. Reliable. Choose any three. I love the brass! http://sqlite.org/ -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? [ ... ] You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of course. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems [ ... ] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
[ top posting ] We have gone off topic a bit from the initial subject of this thread. But please feel free to add comments on the original subject if you feel inclined. And, for those who have volunteered to continue helping with HSQL, thank you. On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Michael Lam mnsyl4...@verizon.netwrote: On 03/30/2013 04:30 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in the meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121754https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754 All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.**org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly so that we can get it done. Regards, Andrea. --**--** - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org I started on the integration of 2.2.9 because the project took care of the handling different jdk and also the patches being applied were integrated into the codebase. Overall I saw it as a better move to have those issues taken care of and gain whatever advances that was made between 2.2.9 and 1.8.x. As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the patches from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't see any relevant changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the configure script. I ran into that while working on another issue. yes...I asked about this yesterday on one of the issues -- there is a lovely patch! -- not yet submitted. Somewhat under discussion in: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121837 Anyone wanting to deal with any hslqdb 2.2.9 will run into this problem. One thing I am looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that are code that is checking for the version of hsql but I have not been able to locate it. Any pointers or knowledge of the Base code would be most helpful since just poking around is quite time consuming. I am learning quite a bit about the code so it is not all bad. Michael --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Michael Lam mnsyl4...@verizon.net wrote: On 03/30/2013 04:30 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in the meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121754https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754 All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.**org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly so that we can get it done. Regards, Andrea. --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org I started on the integration of 2.2.9 because the project took care of the handling different jdk and also the patches being applied were integrated into the codebase. Overall I saw it as a better move to have those issues taken care of and gain whatever advances that was made between 2.2.9 and 1.8.x. As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the patches from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't see any relevant changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the configure script. I ran into that while working on another issue. yes...I asked about this yesterday on one of the issues -- there is a lovely patch! -- not yet submitted. Somewhat under discussion in: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121837 Anyone wanting to deal with any hslqdb 2.2.9 will run into this problem. One thing I am looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that are code that is checking for the version of hsql but I have not been able to locate it. Any pointers or knowledge of the Base code would be most helpful since just poking around is quite time consuming. I am learning quite a bit about the code so it is not all bad. Michael --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Mechtilde o...@mechtilde.de wrote: Hello Am 29.03.2013 19:07, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Reizinger Zoltán zreizin...@hdsnet.hu wrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html http://db.apache. **org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/**embedded_intro.html http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm http://**markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... PRO: * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a document in Write, but you must first install an external application that Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to install the same DB that I used and then make it work. So, it boils down to an ability to create a small single file DB. CON: * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance issues. If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist. This has been a very good discussion so far. I would again like to emphasize two things about our current situation/implementation: * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from Base. (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the connectivity portions of AOO). * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance for the embedded DB In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community. I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an issue which I addressed here http://sourceforge.net/**projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/** 73674/topic/6842122 http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122 I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues that the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem to be within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having made too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the issue, I am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure. For example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column but I am unable to locate the UI code for it. Michael -- Great to hear from you again! The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time. It contains lot of code change. All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.** org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no coding knowledge. First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate work. Zoltan I can/will also do QA for Base Kind regards Mechtilde Good. So, any builds should also include junit option for this purpose I assume and, hi Zoltan -- thanks for this info. I'm not sure how many of us knew about this. As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning to ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back into shape. Any takers? Count me in! I too am doing some additional investigative work. I will be back with the procedures I took in a few days. I installed hsqldb 2.2.9 locally and went from there. I need to go over my build logs again to see if I missed something. I may rebuild with debug options etc to help me out. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in the meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754 All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly so that we can get it done. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 03/30/2013 04:30 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in the meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754 All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly so that we can get it done. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org I started on the integration of 2.2.9 because the project took care of the handling different jdk and also the patches being applied were integrated into the codebase. Overall I saw it as a better move to have those issues taken care of and gain whatever advances that was made between 2.2.9 and 1.8.x. As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the patches from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't see any relevant changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the configure script. I ran into that while working on another issue. One thing I am looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that are code that is checking for the version of hsql but I have not been able to locate it. Any pointers or knowledge of the Base code would be most helpful since just poking around is quite time consuming. I am learning quite a bit about the code so it is not all bad. Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.htmlhttp://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjmhttp://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... PRO: * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a document in Write, but you must first install an external application that Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to install the same DB that I used and then make it work. So, it boils down to an ability to create a small single file DB. CON: * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance issues. If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org This has been a very good discussion so far. I would again like to emphasize two things about our current situation/implementation: * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from Base. (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the connectivity portions of AOO). * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance for the embedded DB In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community. I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an issue which I addressed here http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122 I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues that the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem to be within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having made too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the issue, I am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure. For example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column but I am unable to locate the UI code for it. The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time. It contains lot of code change. All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no coding knowledge. First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate work. Zoltan As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning to ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back into shape. Any takers? Michael - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Reizinger Zoltán zreizin...@hdsnet.huwrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.htmlhttp://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html http://db.apache.**org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/**embedded_intro.htmlhttp://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjmhttp://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm http://**markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjmhttp://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... PRO: * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a document in Write, but you must first install an external application that Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to install the same DB that I used and then make it work. So, it boils down to an ability to create a small single file DB. CON: * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance issues. If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt http://www.**pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**pache.orghttp://apache.org dev-unsubscribe@**openoffice.apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org This has been a very good discussion so far. I would again like to emphasize two things about our current situation/implementation: * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from Base. (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the connectivity portions of AOO). * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance for the embedded DB In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community. I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an issue which I addressed here http://sourceforge.net/**projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/** 73674/topic/6842122http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122 I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues that the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem to be within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having made too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the issue, I am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure. For example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column but I am unable to locate the UI code for it. Michael -- Great to hear from you again! The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time. It contains lot of code change. All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.** org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no coding knowledge. First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate work. Zoltan and, hi Zoltan -- thanks for this info. I'm not sure how many of us knew about this. As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning to ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back into shape. Any takers? Count me in! I too am doing some additional investigative work. I will be back with the procedures I took in a few days. I installed hsqldb 2.2.9 locally and went from there. I need to go over my build logs again to see if I missed something. I may rebuild with debug options etc to help me out. Michael --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail:
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Hello Am 29.03.2013 19:07, schrieb Kay Schenk: On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Reizinger Zoltán zreizin...@hdsnet.huwrote: 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta: On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.htmlhttp://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html http://db.apache.**org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/**embedded_intro.htmlhttp://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjmhttp://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm http://**markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjmhttp://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... PRO: * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a document in Write, but you must first install an external application that Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to install the same DB that I used and then make it work. So, it boils down to an ability to create a small single file DB. CON: * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance issues. If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist. This has been a very good discussion so far. I would again like to emphasize two things about our current situation/implementation: * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from Base. (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the connectivity portions of AOO). * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance for the embedded DB In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community. I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an issue which I addressed here http://sourceforge.net/**projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/** 73674/topic/6842122http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122 I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues that the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem to be within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having made too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the issue, I am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure. For example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column but I am unable to locate the UI code for it. Michael -- Great to hear from you again! The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time. It contains lot of code change. All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.** org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me. I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no coding knowledge. First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate work. Zoltan I can/will also do QA for Base Kind regards Mechtilde and, hi Zoltan -- thanks for this info. I'm not sure how many of us knew about this. As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning to ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back into shape. Any takers? Count me in! I too am doing some additional investigative work. I will be back with the procedures I took in a few days. I installed hsqldb 2.2.9 locally and went from there. I need to go over my build logs again to see if I missed something. I may rebuild with debug options etc to help me out. signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org wrote: On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.htmlhttp://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjmhttp://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... PRO: * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a document in Write, but you must first install an external application that Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to install the same DB that I used and then make it work. So, it boils down to an ability to create a small single file DB. CON: * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance issues. If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odthttp://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php --**--**- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.orgdev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org This has been a very good discussion so far. I would again like to emphasize two things about our current situation/implementation: * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from Base. (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the connectivity portions of AOO). * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance for the embedded DB In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Hi Rob, Hi all, 2013/3/26 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started looking into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ (edited a LOT just recently): [...] So the future is likely going to look like one of the following: 1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base. As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users as well. Why not approach Libo on this question and try to obtain a shared collaboration on Base ?. After all, they have the same problem. Perhaps they could agree on this question which should appear as a win win party. Just an idea. A+ -- gw
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Hi Andrew, Hi all, 2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small data that is relational. For larger data sets, the embedded DB is insufficient. Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums, schools, restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can transform the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size is 40? A+ -- gw
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Guy Waterval waterval@gmail.com wrote: Hi Rob, Hi all, 2013/3/26 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started looking into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ (edited a LOT just recently): [...] So the future is likely going to look like one of the following: 1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base. As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users as well. Why not approach Libo on this question and try to obtain a shared collaboration on Base ?. After all, they have the same problem. Perhaps they could agree on this question which should appear as a win win party. Just an idea. We (IBM) have attempted, several times, to raise this topic of code collaboration with the corporate sponsors of LibreOffice: SUSE and Redhat. Unfortunately, our overtures have been rebuffed each time. But we won't stop trying. -Rob A+ -- gw - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Le 26/03/13 00:39, Ariel Constenla-Haile a écrit : Hi all, This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so you can asume that the average user that tries Base with a MS Office background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base. Those who do use the embedded hsqldb ODB file format in France where I live, be it with OOo, AOO, or LO, tend to be mostly associations, clubs, individuals or other not-for-profit entities as it previously solved their problem of not having to fork out for Access and was cross-platform. This was certainly at least the case until Office 365 came out, for which I now see (this morning) that even the Family Small Business version includes Access (for Windows only, but nonetheless interesting enough). So, it would be worth bearing in mind also that any choice to drop embedded database engine support would probably lead current ODB/ODF users to switch back to MSOffice - after all, if you can have Office 365 Family for 99 Euros and install it on up to 3 different Windows PCs, why go to the hassle of using AOO/LO/OOo ? As for businesses that use this embedded format in France, I wouldn't like to hazard a guess. Personally and professionally, I've only ever used StarOffice/OOo/AOO/LO to access an external data source / db engine / db server. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Le 26/03/13 14:52, Rob Weir a écrit : Hi Rob, Some other interesting facts, most of which we're already familiar with: 1) Microsoft doesn't include Access in their base Office packages. So on the one hand this means that most Office users don't use a database, or they do lightweight database work in their spreadsheet. On the other hand, the fact that OpenOffice has a database included is a distinguishing feature of OpenOffice. Well, a check today of an upgrade offer for Office 2010 on one of my Windows machines led me to a Microsoft Office 365 page on which it was clearly stated that for 99 Euros, I could get a copy of MSOffice 365 Family Edition including Access. Alex - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Guy Waterval waterval@gmail.comwrote: Hi Andrew, Hi all, 2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small data that is relational. For larger data sets, the embedded DB is insufficient. Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums, schools, restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can transform the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size is 40? A+ -- gw My opinion is that users and AOO would be better served if users chose and installed their own small DB (one that would support some typical connectivity -- ODBC, JDBC) instead of AOO supplying one with the product. Many such good small scale DBs exist. It just seems to me that no matter what we have/choose now as an embedded DB, and problems that may ensue with it, and therefore might require future replacement, is a continual problematic cycle we really don't need. At this point, given that we don't really know what folks re doing with Base. I think it would be better to do a transitional move -- take out the embedded DB and therefore Create new DB option would go away. Let the front-end stuff alone. Naturally, we would have to investigate some export mechanisms for users, etc to preserve the data they may already have in ODB. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 27 March 2013 17:12, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Guy Waterval waterval@gmail.com wrote: Hi Andrew, Hi all, 2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak and...@pitonyak.org I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small data that is relational. For larger data sets, the embedded DB is insufficient. Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums, schools, restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can transform the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size is 40? A+ -- gw My opinion is that users and AOO would be better served if users chose and installed their own small DB (one that would support some typical connectivity -- ODBC, JDBC) instead of AOO supplying one with the product. Many such good small scale DBs exist. It just seems to me that no matter what we have/choose now as an embedded DB, and problems that may ensue with it, and therefore might require future replacement, is a continual problematic cycle we really don't need. +1, but maybe we should recommend 2 one for really small scale and one for larger db. That way we do not have the maintenance and we do not leave the users standing in the rain. At this point, given that we don't really know what folks re doing with Base. I think it would be better to do a transitional move -- take out the embedded DB and therefore Create new DB option would go away. Let the front-end stuff alone. +1 Naturally, we would have to investigate some export mechanisms for users, etc to preserve the data they may already have in ODB. e.g. through calc, which whould be relatively easy. rgds Jan I. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Hello there, while the base module of AOO is not used all that often, it's the only free database software. If, for example, you want one from Microsoft you need to buy the very much overpriced MS Office Professional. Well, I've used Base already and I find it handy for my personal needs. I'm into registering all my books with it. I'd say the DB should be kept. By the way, Digitale Schultasche is Digital school bag, not school bar. While Germany is somewhat more liberal than, e. g., the US as it comes to alcohol they still don't open bars in schools... :-D Max Am 27.03.2013 18:30, schrieb Regina Henschel: Hi Kay, Kay Schenk schrieb: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. [..] I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? I do not like the idea to drop the embedded DB. It is a nice feature, when you teach pupils about database. It cannot be done with Calc or dBase tables, because they have no relationships between tables, and teaching foreign keys is essential. Using the embedded database has the advantage, that it is portable. Pupils can have all their work on a USB stick and use it at home and as school as well, without the need to install something or to be online. This concept is known as digitale Schultasche (digital schoolbar) here in Germany. Kind regards Regina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based DBMS in the Foundation. It's actively maintained, and, while it's written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is therefore probably launchable. Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo, if Base can be structured to use it? Don - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
What was the original problem that we are trying to solve? From what I can gather we have no idea how many people use Base. There's speculation that it's small, but unless it's measured, what does this mean? Also, there are some people who think that Base works for them and that it's critical for them to have. Perhaps things are good as is regarding the db? Fred On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based DBMS in the Foundation. It's actively maintained, and, while it's written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is therefore probably launchable. Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo, if Base can be structured to use it? Don Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 27.03.2013 21:57, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based DBMS in the Foundation. It's actively maintained, and, while it's written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is therefore probably launchable. Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo, if Base can be structured to use it? Don Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... Yes, it is a good thing, actually a very good thing! :) OTOH, removing the embedded database feature from AOO is really, really a *bad thing* for many reasons... ---rony P.S.: Not sure why hsqldb (http://hsqldb.org/) does not suffice anymore for an embedded database? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rony G. Flatscher rony.flatsc...@wu.ac.atwrote: On 27.03.2013 21:57, Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based DBMS in the Foundation. It's actively maintained, and, while it's written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is therefore probably launchable. Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo, if Base can be structured to use it? Don Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... Yes, it is a good thing, actually a very good thing! :) OTOH, removing the embedded database feature from AOO is really, really a *bad thing* for many reasons... ---rony P.S.: Not sure why hsqldb (http://hsqldb.org/) does not suffice anymore for an embedded database? - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org Please see several threads on the java7 and hsqldb issues. In my particular test build, using hsqldb 2.2.9 for a build with Oracle java 7 does not produce acceptable results either. Some further information: http://markmail.org/message/kswggpb4cz3gmscg many of these issues came to light with the common use of java7 by users. If you do a search with java7 many more issues will arise. Or look in BZ. As others have pointed out, we really have no dedicated developers in the DB area, and we can't expect users to be stuck with an outdated java just to run AOO. So, that's the story. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Kay Schenk wrote: On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock dwhyt...@gmail.com wrote: Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based DBMS in the Foundation. It's actively maintained, and, while it's written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is therefore probably launchable. Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo, if Base can be structured to use it? Don Well Derby does seem to be embed-able . See: http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See: http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm Still, is any embedded DB a good thing? Pros and cons... Kay; The answer depends on one's point of view Kay. For me having the embedded db was one of the reasons I chose to go with OpenOffice when I was researching replacements for Microsoft Works. I wanted to learn more about relational databases and it saved me from adding yet one more application to my system. The advantage I see of having it is that it is available for those times that it is needed. For the secretary of a club or small association that needs to keep track of members and send mailings, or the individual who wants to track his cd collection or his private library. Then there is the support issue of what do we do for those people that have used it and then do not have it anymore. This is not only a support issue, but could become a marketing nightmare as well. I can see the blog posts and more now about how AOO has taken away functionality. Whether it is fud or not, the negative publicity will have an effect on people. Regards Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
RE: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
I share Regina's concern for the use in teaching and for casual database purposes. I'm not so sure how much SQL is a determining factor. I also sympathize with not wanting a required Java dependency, especially for a built-in component of the suite. However, the cooperation offered by the HSQLDB team might be an important factor: http://hsqldb.org/web/openoffice.html. - Dennis -Original Message- From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.sch...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 17:10 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? [ ... ] Please see several threads on the java7 and hsqldb issues. In my particular test build, using hsqldb 2.2.9 for a build with Oracle java 7 does not produce acceptable results either. Some further information: http://markmail.org/message/kswggpb4cz3gmscg many of these issues came to light with the common use of java7 by users. If you do a search with java7 many more issues will arise. Or look in BZ. As others have pointed out, we really have no dedicated developers in the DB area, and we can't expect users to be stuck with an outdated java just to run AOO. So, that's the story. -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Hello, We need base with its easy way to connect to databases like mysql or postgresql especially under other OS's than Windows. we ourselves developed an extension based on this funktion for Law Offices in Germany There is no other free Office Suite which had a databse modul which you can use therefore. Kind regards Mechtilde Am 26.03.2013 01:29, schrieb Fred Ollinger: Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO for all DB needs? Fred signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 3/26/13 7:16 AM, Mechtilde wrote: Hello, We need base with its easy way to connect to databases like mysql or postgresql especially under other OS's than Windows. we ourselves developed an extension based on this funktion for Law Offices in Germany There is no other free Office Suite which had a databse modul which you can use therefore. the valid point is that we need maintainer for this code. Otherwise it becomes even more buggy and that is even more damaging we don't have such support at all from my pov. But I can understand your demand for it. The key point is that we have to focus and I think we can't do everything. Power users can do probably a lot with extensions using the core database API's. I don't know for sure I never looked deeply in the database area. Juergen Kind regards Mechtilde Am 26.03.2013 01:29, schrieb Fred Ollinger: Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO for all DB needs? Fred - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Ariel , Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on the forums): The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of Dollars and more than one decade of development time. Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever be able to work with any other set of database utilities. I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. +20 Pros want to connect to there compagny based Database Server, msQL, mysql, Oracle etc... and the want Stable and speedy Native Connectors (even to MSQL) General users want to connect to flat files, Spreadsheets , and there Email adress books 1% uses the internal base to store some data so please concentrate the developer efforts to make the connectivity - and the frontend functions better and at least uptodate As a example: Frank Shönheit made a very usefull grid functionality, it works, but need some more work to make it perfect for professional use... greetz Fernand Since 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong. http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so you can asume that the average user that tries Base with a MS Office background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base. For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO it is completely pointless: look at the history in trunk/main/connectivity trunk/main/dbaccess trunk/main/reportdesign trunk/main/reportbuilder if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code, so it's not a matter of having the balls (at least not *just* this); it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs, or developing Base features). Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine, but at the end who will do this? Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB seems something unrealistic. Just let it die. Regards - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Mechtilde Hello, We need base with its easy way to connect to databases like mysql or postgresql especially under other OS's than Windows. we ourselves developed an extension based on this funktion for Law Offices in Germany There is no other free Office Suite which had a databse modul which you can use therefore. i agree Kind regards Mechtilde Am 26.03.2013 01:29, schrieb Fred Ollinger: Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO for all DB needs? Fred - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
+1 to a survey. Also anecdotal descriptions and links to emails don't help much. Please list the relevant Bugzilla bugs here so those of us that care can look at fixing them. Damjan On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Fred Ollinger folli...@gmail.com wrote: Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO for all DB needs? Fred On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: Hi Kay, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on the forums): The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of Dollars and more than one decade of development time. Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever be able to work with any other set of database utilities. I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Since 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong. http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so you can asume that the average user that tries Base with a MS Office background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base. For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO it is completely pointless: look at the history in trunk/main/connectivity trunk/main/dbaccess trunk/main/reportdesign trunk/main/reportbuilder if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code, so it's not a matter of having the balls (at least not *just* this); it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs, or developing Base features). Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine, but at the end who will do this? Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB seems something unrealistic. Just let it die. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started looking into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ (edited a LOT just recently): http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/FAQ_%28Base%29 which seems to indicate (hmmm)-- Is Base a database? Not technically. Base serves several roles within the *Office suite (AOOhttp://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html/ LibO http://www.libreoffice.org/), but Base *itself* is strictly an interface (or front-endhttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa141493%28office.10%29.aspx) designed to connect to various types of databases, by means of driverhttp://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Database/Driver_Specificsfiles. ...and then Base offers to create an *all-in-one 'embedded database' file* similar to MS Access. In this configuration, the front-end components (queries, forms, reports and macros) are packaged together with the database files produced by HSQLDB, all within a single Base (.odb) file. Unfortunately, this single-file concept has proven unreliable with Base, leading to rampant data corruptionhttp://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=162653#p162653. So it's best to avoid the 'Create new database' wizard in Base thereby avoiding 'embedded database' files (perhaps with the exception of developing prototypes or distributing exampleshttp://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=100). Fortunately, Base offers an alternative wizard which produces a robust ' split-databasehttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa141493%28office.10%29.aspx' configuration in which the database (tables and user-data) is stored in a separate file (or files). Steps for creating a new 'split-database' utilizing the built-in HSQL database-engine with Base are outlined below. I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? Some other interesting facts, most of which we're already familiar with: 1) Microsoft doesn't include Access in their base Office packages. So on the one hand this means that most Office users don't use a database, or they do lightweight database work in their spreadsheet. On the other hand, the fact that OpenOffice has a database included is a distinguishing feature of OpenOffice. 2) Symphony did not include Base. So as we port Symphony improvements over to OpenOffice, we should not expect any Base improvements. So unless there is more dev effort in Base, it will fall behind in UI and accessibility as well. 3) As others have mentioned, Base is only as good as we have maintenance of it. Some of mentioned the dev side. We should also note that knowledge of Base is a limiting factor on the QA side as well. Since most users don't use Base, we have a shortage of testers who know Base. 4) Although they are not the majority, there are certainly some users who depend on Base and are passionate about it. No survey is going to resolve this for us. There are Base users. So the future is likely going to look like one of the following: 1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base. As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users as well. 2) We continue as-is, with a gradual degradation in stability, until an incompatible OS change, or a security flaw comes along and administers the coup de grâce. 3) We drop Base before it gets to the point where it harms the reputation of the project. My ordered preference would be 1, 3, 2. -Rob -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My ordered preference would be 1, 3 yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than OpenOfffice.org OO.o lacks database? check! My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was filled by Adabas D. One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database module is praised: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/BDG2N4 * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily create mail merge documents. /// So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that Adabas D had in StarOffice?. FC PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases after all so it should be gone'.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My ordered preference would be 1, 3 yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than OpenOfffice.org OO.o lacks database? check! I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem. Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to solve their problems first and want to save money for other things. If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or something like that. We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1 replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can live perfectly with OpenOffice. My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was filled by Adabas D. One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database module is praised: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/BDG2N4 * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily create mail merge documents. /// So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that Adabas D had in StarOffice?. FC PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases after all so it should be gone'. nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it, nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project at all. I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features and improvements ... Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My ordered preference would be 1, 3 yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than OpenOfffice.org OO.o lacks database? check! My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was filled by Adabas D. One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database module is praised: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/BDG2N4 * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily create mail merge documents. /// So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that Adabas D had in StarOffice?. FC PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases after all so it should be gone'. +1 Again I ask: where are the Bugzilla bugs? A quick search finds a corruption bug (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=55496) which states: While it's difficult to fix this with our current approach, where the data is just some sub-streams in a ZIP package, we need to somehow address this. I fear this might in fact only be possible with a package format (replacing the ZIP package format for this purpose) which allows O(1) random access to all of its parts. If that's the only problem, I don't think the author of that message realized that there is a way to get O(1) random access to the contents of a zipped file: ZIP files allow each archived file to use its own compression type, including no compression. HSQLDB could write directly to its uncompressed byte range in the ZIP file, with a thin shim checking for when it attempts to write beyond the end of this range (ie. grow the database), and then it could expand the ZIP file to accommodate it. With a bit of cleverness, this could even be done in-place, by keeping the HSQL database at the end of the ZIP file (when possible), and just moving up and updating the ZIP directories (and other files, when it's not at the end) that follow it. Oh and as for Jürgen's comment: +1 to competing with Microsoft, because any good office suite naturally will - and should. Damjan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 3/26/13 4:00 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Fernando Cassia fcas...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My ordered preference would be 1, 3 yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than OpenOfffice.org OO.o lacks database? check! My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was filled by Adabas D. One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database module is praised: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/BDG2N4 * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily create mail merge documents. /// So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that Adabas D had in StarOffice?. FC PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases after all so it should be gone'. +1 Again I ask: where are the Bugzilla bugs? A quick search finds a corruption bug (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=55496) which states: While it's difficult to fix this with our current approach, where the data is just some sub-streams in a ZIP package, we need to somehow address this. I fear this might in fact only be possible with a package format (replacing the ZIP package format for this purpose) which allows O(1) random access to all of its parts. If that's the only problem, I don't think the author of that message realized that there is a way to get O(1) random access to the contents of a zipped file: ZIP files allow each archived file to use its own compression type, including no compression. HSQLDB could write directly to its uncompressed byte range in the ZIP file, with a thin shim checking for when it attempts to write beyond the end of this range (ie. grow the database), and then it could expand the ZIP file to accommodate it. With a bit of cleverness, this could even be done in-place, by keeping the HSQL database at the end of the ZIP file (when possible), and just moving up and updating the ZIP directories (and other files, when it's not at the end) that follow it. Oh and as for Jürgen's comment: +1 to competing with Microsoft, because any good office suite naturally will - and should. I stopped dreaming at least for this specific topic and be more realistic ;-) Juergen Damjan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My ordered preference would be 1, 3 yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than OpenOfffice.org OO.o lacks database? check! I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem. Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to solve their problems first and want to save money for other things. I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if we have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with microsoft, we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to the office suite. If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to us, since they have a more developed suite with many more components that what we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is somewhat more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part of the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have also asked for a Visio-like module). If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or something like that. We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1 replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can live perfectly with OpenOffice. My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was filled by Adabas D. One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database module is praised: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/BDG2N4 * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily create mail merge documents. /// So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that Adabas D had in StarOffice?. I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as python and other components shipped with the suite. FC PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases after all so it should be gone'. Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format that makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL language within Excel called DAO. It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base. nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it, nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project at all. I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features and improvements ... Juergen - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org -- Alexandro Colorado Apache OpenOffice Contributor http://es.openoffice.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.orgwrote: Hi Kay, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on the forums): The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of Dollars and more than one decade of development time. Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever be able to work with any other set of database utilities. I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Well I think we have the balls but we need to discuss this. I agree that keeping the connectivity, the front-end portion, is vital, it's the embedded DB that I am questioning. Since 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong. http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so you can asume that the average user that tries Base with a MS Office background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base. For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO it is completely pointless: look at the history in trunk/main/connectivity trunk/main/dbaccess trunk/main/reportdesign trunk/main/reportbuilder if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code, so it's not a matter of having the balls (at least not *just* this); it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs, or developing Base features). Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine, but at the end who will do this? Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB seems something unrealistic. Just let it die. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin.
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
On 26 March 2013 18:16, Kay Schenk kay.sch...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Alexandro Colorado j...@oooes.org wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My ordered preference would be 1, 3 yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than OpenOfffice.org OO.o lacks database? check! I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem. Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to solve their problems first and want to save money for other things. I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if we have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with microsoft, we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to the office suite. If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to us, since they have a more developed suite with many more components that what we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is somewhat more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part of the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have also asked for a Visio-like module). If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or something like that. We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1 replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can live perfectly with OpenOffice. My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was filled by Adabas D. One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database module is praised: http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/BDG2N4 * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily create mail merge documents. /// So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that Adabas D had in StarOffice?. I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as python and other components shipped with the suite. FC PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases after all so it should be gone'. Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format that makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL language within Excel called DAO. It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base. As a quick reply to the spreadsheet comment. Already, there exist DB functions in Calc, and Base can import spreadsheets into its front-end if you will. We are living in a far, far different world than when StarOffice was first introduced. The database world, who creates them, who maintains them is quite different. I brought this up to suggest that the focus of Base be changed, not eliminated entirely. Maintaining/developing the connectivity pieces to various forms of databases is probably manageable. A full-blown embedded DB -- maybe not. What are the consequences of a full-blown embedded DB to both developers and end users? It is soo much easier just to use an open source db, that are maintained by database specialist. If we should embed one (which I do not like), we should anyhow not develop
RE: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
I support the 1, 3, 2 prioritization. With regard to the first item (1) below, Microsoft Office 2013 Access is now provided with the Office 365 Home Premium subscription and all Office 365 Business subscriptions that include the current (now 2013) Microsoft Office desktop applications. With regard to the prioritization, an alternative to (2) is to spin Base out as a distinct companion application to the Apache OpenOffice distro (thereby becoming another approach to (2)). It could still be supportive of ODF Text and Spreadsheet formats and ODF-supporting applications for report viewing, etc. Being more loosely-coupled might be preferable for the kind of refactoring and technical-debt forgiveness that is apparently called for. It would also satisfy preferences for greater-modularity. It would also simplify separate development of mobile-scale and cloud-based apps. - Dennis PS: I suspect that the Access 2007-2013 .accdb format may be important to support if one wants to provide any sort of interop parity. .mdb might be important as well. TL;DR: The page of screen shots that Rob linked in a post about Splashscreens includes all of the desktop apps that are part of both Office 365 Home Premium and Office 365 Business subscription versions. The screen with the initial templates for creating new Access databases includes both external and desktop cases for each template style. (The matching desktop versions are scrolled off the bottom in the screenshot.) With Office 365 Small Business Premium, there are two available (cloud) Sharepoint locations available by default (one personal, one team) for creating external databases. Desktop databases can be on shared file systems. I just tried that out with the Desktop Issue Tracker creation wizard. I was able to create one in my SkyDrive-synchronized desktop directory also. For the record, also included, beside an allowance for installation on up to 5 devices, are automatically synchronized settings amond the devices and Office on Demand (a way to install over the internet on another computer temporarily). Also included in all of those are Outlook, OneNote, and Publisher. The Home Premium includes Skype and SkyDrive bonuses, whereas the Business subscriptions provide Lync, a cloud Exchange service, and SkyDrive Pro (a cloud Sharepoint Service). Visio and Project are still extra. Business plans have a subscription supplement that provides server space for sharing team projects. I don't know about any Visio subscription supplement. These simplified, expanded arrangements are apparently a consequence of the wonderful marginal-cost benefits of an internet-based subscription and provisioning system for commodity software and services. There are a variety of student plans with differing features. Some require confirmed student standing. -Original Message- From: Rob Weir [mailto:robw...@apache.org] Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2013 06:53 To: dev@openoffice.apache.org Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB? [ ... ] Some other interesting facts, most of which we're already familiar with: 1) Microsoft doesn't include Access in their base Office packages. So on the one hand this means that most Office users don't use a database, or they do lightweight database work in their spreadsheet. On the other hand, the fact that OpenOffice has a database included is a distinguishing feature of OpenOffice. [ ... ] So the future is likely going to look like one of the following: 1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base. As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users as well. 2) We continue as-is, with a gradual degradation in stability, until an incompatible OS change, or a security flaw comes along and administers the coup de grâce. 3) We drop Base before it gets to the point where it harms the reputation of the project. My ordered preference would be 1, 3, 2. -Rob -- MzK Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small data that is relational. For larger data sets, the embedded DB is insufficient. I see that you specifically ask about an embedded DB, yet some of the answers are related to Base in general. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO for all DB needs? Fred On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile arie...@apache.org wrote: Hi Kay, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on the forums): The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of Dollars and more than one decade of development time. Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever be able to work with any other set of database utilities. I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Since 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong. http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so you can asume that the average user that tries Base with a MS Office background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base. For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO it is completely pointless: look at the history in trunk/main/connectivity trunk/main/dbaccess trunk/main/reportdesign trunk/main/reportbuilder if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code, so it's not a matter of having the balls (at least not *just* this); it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs, or developing Base features). Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine, but at the end who will do this? Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB seems something unrealistic. Just let it die. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
Hi Kay, On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote: Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on the forums): The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of Dollars and more than one decade of development time. Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever be able to work with any other set of database utilities. I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Since 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong. http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility for that embedded DB on this project. What if Base were strictly a front-end? So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any, directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to using the front-end capabilities? This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so you can asume that the average user that tries Base with a MS Office background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base. For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO it is completely pointless: look at the history in trunk/main/connectivity trunk/main/dbaccess trunk/main/reportdesign trunk/main/reportbuilder if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code, so it's not a matter of having the balls (at least not *just* this); it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs, or developing Base features). Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine, but at the end who will do this? Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB seems something unrealistic. Just let it die. Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpoEY3bUhv2t.pgp Description: PGP signature
