Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Apparently my previous message in this thread on 2007-10-04 was too complicated and asked too many questions as nobody followed up on it, so I'll ask just one specific question at a time then... Do I understand the specification correctly, it is possible to specify platform requirements only for UNO native components (shared libraries) in an extension, not for all of an extension in general, that might not even contain any UNO components? Or is it a (so far not enforced) requirement that extensions must contain a UNO component shared library? (Even just a mimimal dummy one...) Cheers, --tml - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Tor Lillqvist wrote: Apparently my previous message in this thread on 2007-10-04 was too complicated and asked too many questions as nobody followed up on it, so I'll ask just one specific question at a time then... maybe be the reason was more the time of your message ;-) Juergen Do I understand the specification correctly, it is possible to specify platform requirements only for UNO native components (shared libraries) in an extension, not for all of an extension in general, that might not even contain any UNO components? yes, platform dependencies would be a new category of dependencies. The currently available dependencies could be normally resolved by an upgrade or so. Or is it a (so far not enforced) requirement that extensions must contain a UNO component shared library? (Even just a mimimal dummy one...) a dummy shared library is probably a bad idea because it doesn't really help. Juergen Cheers, --tml - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Tor Lillqvist wrote: http://api.openoffice.org/docs/DevelopersGuide/Extensions/Extensions.xhtml#1_7_Dependencies: Hmm, so could I have an example of how to specify a dependency on a feature present only in some FooBar version of OOo? Btw, do I read the referred-to section of the specification correctly, that OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is both an element and and an optional attribute of each child element of description? Would the below example be the correct way to specify a requirement for a specific build of OOo that recognizes and implements certain version-specific dependencies? Let's ssume this Foo version of OOo contains code so that it knows that it implements the foo:HavePatch dependency for some foo:PatchName attribute values, and the foo:Platform dependency with its attributes. Would a non-Foo build of OOo then correctly reject this extension with some message like This extension requires the following features not present in this version: 'The xyzzy.diff patch present in the Foo build of OOo', 'Windows XP' ? description xmlns=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:dep=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:foo=http://foo.whatever.org/whatever/foo/12345; xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink; version value=1.0.6-1 / dependencies OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.1 dep:name=OpenOffice.org 2.1/ foo:HavePatch foo:PatchName=xyzzy.diff dep:name=The xyzzy.diff patch present in the Foo build of OOo/ foo:Platform foo:PlatformArchitecture=x86 foo:OS=Windows foo:MinOSVer=XP dep:name=Windows XP/ /dependencies /description well, independent of the flexibility of the dependency feature i would say that such a dependency foo:HavePatch would be a misuse of the whole feature. So your intention is obvious and stupid. Juergen (Do I understand the specification correctly, it is possible to specify platform requirements only for UNO native components (shared libraries), not for extensions in general that do not contain UNO components? Or *should* all extensions contain even just a minimal dummy UNO component shared library?) Cheers, --tml - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Tor Lillqvist wrote: Apparently my previous message in this thread on 2007-10-04 was too complicated and asked too many questions as nobody followed up on it, so I'll ask just one specific question at a time then... Do I understand the specification correctly, it is possible to specify platform requirements only for UNO native components (shared libraries) in an extension, not for all of an extension in general, that might not even contain any UNO components? The feature to install parts of an extension only for specific platforms is currently only available for shared libraries (where it is controlled by the media type given in the manifest). But note that this feature of shared libraries does not control whether or not an extension can be installed on a given platform. If an extension only contains a shared library for, say, Windows, the extension will also happily install on, say, Linux (where it will probably be rather dysfunctional). At least that is the current situation (which, of course, leaves room for improvement). Or is it a (so far not enforced) requirement that extensions must contain a UNO component shared library? (Even just a mimimal dummy one...) ...which would not even help you in any way (see above). -Stephan - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Tor Lillqvist wrote: http://api.openoffice.org/docs/DevelopersGuide/Extensions/Extensions.xhtml#1_7_Dependencies: Hmm, so could I have an example of how to specify a dependency on a feature present only in some FooBar version of OOo? Btw, do I read the referred-to section of the specification correctly, that OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is both an element and and an optional attribute of each child element of description? Yes. Would the below example be the correct way to specify a requirement for a specific build of OOo that recognizes and implements certain version-specific dependencies? Let's ssume this Foo version of OOo contains code so that it knows that it implements the foo:HavePatch dependency for some foo:PatchName attribute values, and the foo:Platform dependency with its attributes. Would a non-Foo build of OOo then correctly reject this extension with some message like This extension requires the following features not present in this version: 'The xyzzy.diff patch present in the Foo build of OOo', 'Windows XP' ? Yes, more or less: - You only need the OpenOffice.org-minimal-version dependency if you have additional reasons to depend on such a version, apart from those reasons catered for by the other two dependencies you specify. - Code would need to be added to OOo to detect whether it satisfies the foo:HavePatch dependency (at least in those code branches that can potentially satisfy it). - I would prefer dependency formulations to be phenotypical (like requires a certain UNO service to be available) rather then genotypical (like requires the OOo to be built from code that contained some patch). - Code would need to be added to OOo to detect whether it satisfies the foo:Platform dependency. - The foo:Platform dependency has the problem that the relevant code (see above) would only be added to OOo starting with some version, say OOo 2.4, and all older OOo's would thus reject the extension, even on an appropriate platform. Therefore, it would probably be better to add an OpenOffice.org-minimal-version attribute so that the extension also installs on older versions (where, of course, it would erroneously also install for wrong platforms). - Also, for platform dependencies, yet another way to specify them (other than through dependencies) might be advantageous. (For example, to make online discovery and update of extension platform-aware.) This probably needs some more thought. -Stephan description xmlns=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:dep=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:foo=http://foo.whatever.org/whatever/foo/12345; xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink; version value=1.0.6-1/ dependencies OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.1 dep:name=OpenOffice.org 2.1/ foo:HavePatch foo:PatchName=xyzzy.diff dep:name=The xyzzy.diff patch present in the Foo build of OOo/ foo:Platform foo:PlatformArchitecture=x86 foo:OS=Windows foo:MinOSVer=XP dep:name=Windows XP/ /dependencies /description - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
http://api.openoffice.org/docs/DevelopersGuide/Extensions/Extensions.xhtml#1_7_Dependencies: Hmm, so could I have an example of how to specify a dependency on a feature present only in some FooBar version of OOo? Btw, do I read the referred-to section of the specification correctly, that OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is both an element and and an optional attribute of each child element of description? Would the below example be the correct way to specify a requirement for a specific build of OOo that recognizes and implements certain version-specific dependencies? Let's ssume this Foo version of OOo contains code so that it knows that it implements the foo:HavePatch dependency for some foo:PatchName attribute values, and the foo:Platform dependency with its attributes. Would a non-Foo build of OOo then correctly reject this extension with some message like This extension requires the following features not present in this version: 'The xyzzy.diff patch present in the Foo build of OOo', 'Windows XP' ? description xmlns=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:dep=http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006; xmlns:foo=http://foo.whatever.org/whatever/foo/12345; xmlns:xlink=http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink; version value=1.0.6-1 / dependencies OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.1 dep:name=OpenOffice.org 2.1/ foo:HavePatch foo:PatchName=xyzzy.diff dep:name=The xyzzy.diff patch present in the Foo build of OOo/ foo:Platform foo:PlatformArchitecture=x86 foo:OS=Windows foo:MinOSVer=XP dep:name=Windows XP/ /dependencies /description (Do I understand the specification correctly, it is possible to specify platform requirements only for UNO native components (shared libraries), not for extensions in general that do not contain UNO components? Or *should* all extensions contain even just a minimal dummy UNO component shared library?) Cheers, --tml - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
On 03 Oct 2007 22:53:42 +0200, Thorsten Behrens [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Oliver Brinzing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you should remove the p: Good catch, done. New version uploaded. BTW, could you add to the name of the extension an version number (dxcanvas_v1.0.oxt...) and increase it each time you change it? That would help to follow the new versions. Thanks Cheers, -- Pierre-André Galmes Free Software consultant StarXpert - www.starxpert.fr 6, rue Eugène Varlin - 75010 Paris
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Oliver Brinzing wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi To add more info to this, we tried to use unopkg.com and not unopkg.exe and the installation worked even if unopkg says it failed: namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ you should remove the p: No, you should declare the d: namespace instead. http://api.openoffice.org/docs/DevelopersGuide/Extensions/Extensions.xhtml#1_7_Dependencies: Each such child element should have an attribute whose name consists of the namespace name 'http://openoffice.org/extensions/description/2006' and the local part 'name'. Since default namespaces in XML do not extend to attributes, you need to give an explicit namespace to d:name (see http://api.openoffice.org/docs/DevelopersGuide/Extensions/Extensions.xhtml#1_5_2_Example). Subtle, eh? ;) -Stephan [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Stephan Bergmann [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: No, you should declare the d: namespace instead. Thx for the hint. Done. Since default namespaces in XML do not extend to attributes, you need to give an explicit namespace to d:name (see http://api.openoffice.org/docs/DevelopersGuide/Extensions/Extensions.xhtml#1_5_2_Example). Subtle, eh? ;) Nope. Error-prone. ;-) Cheers, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
On 10/3/07, PA Galmes [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Any idea why it does not work ? Is it possible to solve it ? Is it related to UNOPKG or to the extension? To add more info to this, we tried to use unopkg.com and not unopkg.exe and the installation worked even if unopkg says it failed: namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ ^ namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ ^ namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ ^ namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ ^ namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ ^ unopkg failed. Any idea? Shouldn't an issue be declared for this? -- Pierre-André Galmes Free Software consultant StarXpert - www.starxpert.fr 6, rue Eugène Varlin - 75010 Paris
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi To add more info to this, we tried to use unopkg.com and not unopkg.exe and the installation worked even if unopkg says it failed: namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ you should remove the p: dependencies OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ /dependencies Oliver - -- GnuPG key 0xCFD04A45: 8822 057F 4956 46D3 352C 1A06 4E2C AB40 CFD0 4A45 -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHA7dQTiyrQM/QSkURAm8yAJ4oBMsqMjgh37AWD1oOqCkVd4llfwCeKcNo E7psu15syoySNAQUojitnZQ= =rVUY -END PGP SIGNATURE- - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
On 10/3/07, Oliver Brinzing [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 Hi To add more info to this, we tried to use unopkg.com and not unopkg.exe and the installation worked even if unopkg says it failed: namespace error : Namespace prefix d for name on OpenOffice.org-minimal-version is not defined OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 d:name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ you should remove the p: dependencies OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 name=OpenOffice.org 2.3/ /dependencies Thanks for the advice. But why does this works when double clicking on the extension (.oxt)? Is this normal? Regards, - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Re: UNOPKG and extension deployment
Oliver Brinzing [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: you should remove the p: Good catch, done. New version uploaded. Thx, -- Thorsten - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
