Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
2010/11/7 Michael Meeks : > The plan to keep, and improve the existing VCL abstraction for the next > year or so makes a lot of sense I believe. > Of course, I think nobody is asking to try to fly when we do not know if we are able to walk without too much problems. These huge redesigns must be planned for LibO 5... but they must be planned ;) -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
Hi Alexandro, On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 21:12 -0600, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > I agree with that point however this toolkit is GPL LGPL. > and also has a dynamic of being adopted by other mobile > platforms like meego. Wait - I think I worked on that ;-) > Just to weight the pros and con on the topic of separating > the engine from the toolkit and adopting into other toolkits. Really - I would leave the technical issues here to the dev team, we are well aware of the options and stumbling blocks here. The plan to keep, and improve the existing VCL abstraction for the next year or so makes a lot of sense I believe. ATB, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
- Original message - > Hi Alexandro, > > On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 17:28 -0600, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > > represent some advantages. Certainly the development cost will be > > disipated since the toolkit would be mantained by a broader community. > > Having finally rid ourselves of one corporate controlled, mandatory > corporate copyright ownership aggregation problem area, I don't want to > import another one, just lower down the stack. > > Hmm, > > Michael. > > -- > michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot hi Michael I agree with that point however this toolkit is GPL and also has a dynamic of being adopted by other mobile platforms like meego. Just to weight the pros and con on the topic of separating the engine from the toolkit and adopting into other toolkits. Not sure how the other toolkits in android or iphone can provide. -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
Hi Alexandro, On Sat, 2010-11-06 at 17:28 -0600, Alexandro Colorado wrote: > represent some advantages. Certainly the development cost will be > disipated since the toolkit would be mantained by a broader community. Having finally rid ourselves of one corporate controlled, mandatory corporate copyright ownership aggregation problem area, I don't want to import another one, just lower down the stack. Hmm, Michael. -- michael.me...@novell.com <><, Pseudo Engineer, itinerant idiot -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
On Sat, Nov 6, 2010 at 10:58 PM, RGB ES wrote: > I was thinking on something similar. If it were possible to completely > separate "core" from UI it would be great. For example, someone who > knows Qt but nothing about GTK will be able to create a gui for MeeGo > without messing with core elements. Or someone else will be able to > build a gui for small monitors. Or another person will be able to > build something for "power users" in which you can only see style > stuff while just another person will contribute a kids & format > painter lovers interface. > To go on with this idea, I think it will be interesting to make the > core "toolkit independent" (i.e., pure C or C++, without GTK or any > stuff like that), so it will be possible to integrate LibO on any > platform "just" (yes, I know it is not easy, that's why I used > quotes... ;) ) by writing a proper UI. LibO already has different frontends for GTK+, QT, native Win32 and native Mac in the vcl module and they are independent as any change in the code of one of those toolkits doesn't affect the others. It could be done better for sure, but what you are mentioning is already possible. -- Jesús Corrius Document Foundation founding member Skype: jcorrius | Twitter: @jcorrius -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:58:37 -0600, RGB ES wrote: I was thinking on something similar. If it were possible to completely separate "core" from UI it would be great. For example, someone who knows Qt but nothing about GTK will be able to create a gui for MeeGo without messing with core elements. Or someone else will be able to build a gui for small monitors. Or another person will be able to build something for "power users" in which you can only see style stuff while just another person will contribute a kids & format painter lovers interface. To go on with this idea, I think it will be interesting to make the core "toolkit independent" (i.e., pure C or C++, without GTK or any stuff like that), so it will be possible to integrate LibO on any platform "just" (yes, I know it is not easy, that's why I used quotes... ;) ) by writing a proper UI. A couple of years ago during an event in Spain (Desktop Summit) people from Nokia approach me as the only OOo representative in the event. They expressed their proposal on having OOo adopt Qt as their UI. The proposal represent some advantages. Certainly the development cost will be disipated since the toolkit would be mantained by a broader community. I still got the guy's card and probably try to get them to come close to the LO dev team with more information about this. 2010/11/6 Lee Hyde : Greetings All, I'm just a humble end user, and frankly I have little-to-no knowledge of software development but I was wondering whether there is a clear separation between frontend and backend with LibreOffice. Such that it would make it easy to essentially 'slot-in' a replacement GUI. As I say, I'm not familiar with software development in general much less the specifics of OOo/LibO but it seems to the that one of the better ways to encourage innovation is to make it easy for people to 'hack' on individual modules and in particular the GUI (which is in dire need of modernisation and optimisation in my humble opinion). If 'hacking' a new GUI onto OOo/Lib (a'la IBM Lotus Symphony) at the moment is non-trivial it will hinder innovation in the form of specialist forks (which could be very useful for the mother project) and/or experimental UI (which are clearly intended to showcase innovative ideas to see if they could or should be merged into the mother project). I just thought I'd bring this up in light of all the discussion regarding UI reform. Of course I could be way off base here, and if I am please do set me straight; if I need some edumacating regarding the state of OOo/LibO do edumacatify me! Regards, Lee Hyde. P.S. The quote in my signature was chosen at random, rather appropriate though don't you think? -- "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** -- Alexandro Colorado OOoES A.C - http://oooes.org GPG: 68D072E6 -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
I was thinking on something similar. If it were possible to completely separate "core" from UI it would be great. For example, someone who knows Qt but nothing about GTK will be able to create a gui for MeeGo without messing with core elements. Or someone else will be able to build a gui for small monitors. Or another person will be able to build something for "power users" in which you can only see style stuff while just another person will contribute a kids & format painter lovers interface. To go on with this idea, I think it will be interesting to make the core "toolkit independent" (i.e., pure C or C++, without GTK or any stuff like that), so it will be possible to integrate LibO on any platform "just" (yes, I know it is not easy, that's why I used quotes... ;) ) by writing a proper UI. 2010/11/6 Lee Hyde : > Greetings All, > > I'm just a humble end user, and frankly I have little-to-no knowledge of > software development but I was wondering whether there is a clear > separation between frontend and backend with LibreOffice. Such that it > would make it easy to essentially 'slot-in' a replacement GUI. > > As I say, I'm not familiar with software development in general much > less the specifics of OOo/LibO but it seems to the that one of the > better ways to encourage innovation is to make it easy for people to > 'hack' on individual modules and in particular the GUI (which is in dire > need of modernisation and optimisation in my humble opinion). If > 'hacking' a new GUI onto OOo/Lib (a'la IBM Lotus Symphony) at the moment > is non-trivial it will hinder innovation in the form of specialist forks > (which could be very useful for the mother project) and/or experimental > UI (which are clearly intended to showcase innovative ideas to see if > they could or should be merged into the mother project). > > I just thought I'd bring this up in light of all the discussion > regarding UI reform. Of course I could be way off base here, and if I am > please do set me straight; if I need some edumacating regarding the > state of OOo/LibO do edumacatify me! > > Regards, > > Lee Hyde. > > P.S. The quote in my signature was chosen at random, rather appropriate > though don't you think? > > -- > "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" > > -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio > vaccine > > > > > -- > Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org > Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html > Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ > *** All posts to this list are publicly archived *** > > -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
Re: [tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
Lee Hyde wrote: Greetings All, I'm just a humble end user, and frankly I have little-to-no knowledge of software development but I was wondering whether there is a clear separation between frontend and backend with LibreOffice. Such that it would make it easy to essentially 'slot-in' a replacement GUI. As I say, I'm not familiar with software development in general much less the specifics of OOo/LibO but it seems to the that one of the better ways to encourage innovation is to make it easy for people to 'hack' on individual modules and in particular the GUI (which is in dire need of modernisation and optimisation in my humble opinion). If 'hacking' a new GUI onto OOo/Lib (a'la IBM Lotus Symphony) at the moment is non-trivial it will hinder innovation in the form of specialist forks (which could be very useful for the mother project) and/or experimental UI (which are clearly intended to showcase innovative ideas to see if they could or should be merged into the mother project). By specialist forks, does that mean like a special version for lawyers that does pleading forms, or a special version for screenwriters that has special enhancement for doing scripts, that sort of thing? -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
[tdf-discuss] Clear separation between frontend and backend?
Greetings All, I'm just a humble end user, and frankly I have little-to-no knowledge of software development but I was wondering whether there is a clear separation between frontend and backend with LibreOffice. Such that it would make it easy to essentially 'slot-in' a replacement GUI. As I say, I'm not familiar with software development in general much less the specifics of OOo/LibO but it seems to the that one of the better ways to encourage innovation is to make it easy for people to 'hack' on individual modules and in particular the GUI (which is in dire need of modernisation and optimisation in my humble opinion). If 'hacking' a new GUI onto OOo/Lib (a'la IBM Lotus Symphony) at the moment is non-trivial it will hinder innovation in the form of specialist forks (which could be very useful for the mother project) and/or experimental UI (which are clearly intended to showcase innovative ideas to see if they could or should be merged into the mother project). I just thought I'd bring this up in light of all the discussion regarding UI reform. Of course I could be way off base here, and if I am please do set me straight; if I need some edumacating regarding the state of OOo/LibO do edumacatify me! Regards, Lee Hyde. P.S. The quote in my signature was chosen at random, rather appropriate though don't you think? -- "There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" -- Dr. Jonas Stalk, on being asked who owned the patent for his polio vaccine -- Unsubscribe instructions: Email to discuss+h...@documentfoundation.org Posting guidelines: http://netmeister.org/news/learn2quote.html Archive: http://www.documentfoundation.org/lists/discuss/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived ***
