Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote: Hi guys, On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote: I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api for 3rd party developers? It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list; Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear answer. Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I speak it. Stephan Bergman talked about Well-typed UNO, something that would involve incompatible changes to the UNO API. I would like to know if LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am just talking about changes on API level not the underlying implementation. That would be something that both projects would do independently. I am asking this because I think that the users of both LO and AOO would benefit from APIs that are as similar as possible. I am aware that there are other incompatible changes in both projects but every part of the API that remains compatible between LO and AOO means that an extension developer does not have to care about it when developing an extension for both projects. please drop that one from the CC. As my question is directed at (to?) the LibreOffice developers, I hope that you don't mind that I have put the LO list back on CC. Thanks, Andre Thanks, Michael. ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote: On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote: I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api for 3rd party developers? It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list; Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear answer. Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I speak it. Stephan Bergman talked about Well-typed UNO, something that would involve incompatible changes to the UNO API. I would like to know if LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am just talking about changes on API level not the underlying implementation. That would be something that both projects would do independently. First off, depends on what you mean with UNO API. One customary meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and offapi/ .idl files. (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the API Changes section at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes/.) Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface the URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc. My hope is that my work on changing the type representation does not affect the former, only the latter (file formats etc.). And, obviously, it will need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan. That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that I'm going to well document all the changes to any specifications---just like I did for any other changes to UNO I did over the last ten years or so. And, as always, any input is highly welcome. Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On 06.03.2013 15:25, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote: On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote: I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api for 3rd party developers? It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list; Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear answer. Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I speak it. Stephan Bergman talked about Well-typed UNO, something that would involve incompatible changes to the UNO API. I would like to know if LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am just talking about changes on API level not the underlying implementation. That would be something that both projects would do independently. First off, depends on what you mean with UNO API. One customary meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and offapi/ .idl files. (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the API Changes section at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes/.) Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface the URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc. My hope is that my work on changing the type representation does not affect the former, only the latter (file formats etc.). And, obviously, it will need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan. By UNO API I mean everything that affects a packaged extension, that is basically your option B. So if I understand you correctly that an extension developer just has to recompile (for a C++ extension) the source code, repackage the extension and is done (with respect to your changes). That sounds good. That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that I'm going to well document all the changes to any specifications---just like I did for any other changes to UNO I did over the last ten years or so. And, as always, any input is highly welcome. Great. Thanks. Do you have a pointer to the relevant documentation? -Andre Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On 03/06/2013 04:47 PM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 06.03.2013 15:25, Stephan Bergmann wrote: On 03/06/2013 09:00 AM, Andre Fischer wrote: On 05.03.2013 18:29, Michael Meeks wrote: On Tue, 2013-03-05 at 09:19 -0800, Fred Ollinger wrote: I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api for 3rd party developers? It's an interesting discussion; but in the absence of any concrete code, patches etc. it doesn't belong on the libreoffice developer list; Talking about a concrete change is a good idea so please let me ask a question similar to one I asked at FOSDEM but to which I got no clear answer. Probably because of my bad English that is even worse when I speak it. Stephan Bergman talked about Well-typed UNO, something that would involve incompatible changes to the UNO API. I would like to know if LibreOffice and Apache OpenOffice could work together on this. I am just talking about changes on API level not the underlying implementation. That would be something that both projects would do independently. First off, depends on what you mean with UNO API. One customary meaning is the set of UNOIDL entities (mainly) declared in udkapi/ and offapi/ .idl files. (LibreOffice tries to meticulously track any incompatible changes it does there, see e.g., the API Changes section at http://www.libreoffice.org/download/4-0-new-features-and-fixes/.) Another customary meaning is the broader concept of stable interface the URE offers, including C ABI, file formats, wire protocols, etc. My hope is that my work on changing the type representation does not affect the former, only the latter (file formats etc.). And, obviously, it will need to take care of a backward-compatibility plan. By UNO API I mean everything that affects a packaged extension, that is basically your option B. So if I understand you correctly that an extension developer just has to recompile (for a C++ extension) the source code, repackage the extension and is done (with respect to your changes). That sounds good. It should basically boil down to: If you include a types.rdb in your extension, you can translate it to the new format (or not, in which case your extension will work as long as we keep the backwards-compatibility code alive). If you don't include something like that (and that's likely most extensions anyway, except for Calc Add-Ons), you don't need to do anything at all. That said, I can only repeat now what I already said at FOSDEM, that I'm going to well document all the changes to any specifications---just like I did for any other changes to UNO I did over the last ten years or so. And, as always, any input is highly welcome. Great. Thanks. Do you have a pointer to the relevant documentation? Not yet. As always, things progress more slowly than I'd hoped. Stay tuned, though. ;) Stephan ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Fernand Vanrie s...@pmgroup.be wrote: On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote: 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API. for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic) itself I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the code? thats more a question for the developers list . LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org and fore the aOO counterpart ooo-...@incubator.apache.org Thanks, Marco The reason why nobody responded is no one knows, and it will generally get worse over time as the codebases diverge. It is sort of like the Java: write once, test everywhere situation. One of the unintended consequences of the fork is the various ways it makes things more difficult for third-parties. Users will generally pick one product, but extension developers have a more complicated set of choices because they may want to support multiple brands. Here is an article I recently wrote about the power of brands that may be helpful: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3163 The good news is that in the free software world, code flows with less friction. Any typical (non-enterprise) who really wants an extension will likely be able to install a specific version of the product if it is required. It is just a download. Good luck! Regards, -Keith ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
I know that there were reasons for the fork and I respect that. I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api for 3rd party developers? Probably not, but I think it's worth asking. Fred On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Fernand Vanrie s...@pmgroup.be wrote: On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote: 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API. for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic) itself I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the code? thats more a question for the developers list . LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org and fore the aOO counterpart ooo-...@incubator.apache.org Thanks, Marco The reason why nobody responded is no one knows, and it will generally get worse over time as the codebases diverge. It is sort of like the Java: write once, test everywhere situation. One of the unintended consequences of the fork is the various ways it makes things more difficult for third-parties. Users will generally pick one product, but extension developers have a more complicated set of choices because they may want to support multiple brands. Here is an article I recently wrote about the power of brands that may be helpful: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3163 The good news is that in the free software world, code flows with less friction. Any typical (non-enterprise) who really wants an extension will likely be able to install a specific version of the product if it is required. It is just a download. Good luck! Regards, -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On 03/04/2013 04:46 AM, Fernand Vanrie wrote: On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote: 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API. for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic) itself I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the code? I am not aware of any list. The primary issues are likely related to things such as new services added into one product but not in another; for example, a new graph type in Calc. As secondary issues, there may be services that are deprecated by one group, or bug fixes or new bugs, etc. I expect that you are on your own there. -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
They work independently. The best you can likely do is to check the code or dev documentation to see if it is in both places and if it is marked deprecated or not. I do not know how to check the IDL, but, if you figure that out, I expect that it would not be too difficult to check that for compatibility (but I have never looked at it). On 03/05/2013 12:19 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: I know that there were reasons for the fork and I respect that. I was wondering if libreoffice and aooo can't agree to some basic level api for 3rd party developers? Probably not, but I think it's worth asking. Fred On Tue, Mar 5, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Keith Curtis keit...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Mar 4, 2013 at 1:46 AM, Fernand Vanrie s...@pmgroup.be wrote: On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote: 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API. for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic) itself I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the code? thats more a question for the developers list . LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org and fore the aOO counterpart ooo-...@incubator.apache.org Thanks, Marco The reason why nobody responded is no one knows, and it will generally get worse over time as the codebases diverge. It is sort of like the Java: write once, test everywhere situation. One of the unintended consequences of the fork is the various ways it makes things more difficult for third-parties. Users will generally pick one product, but extension developers have a more complicated set of choices because they may want to support multiple brands. Here is an article I recently wrote about the power of brands that may be helpful: http://keithcu.com/wordpress/?p=3163 The good news is that in the free software world, code flows with less friction. Any typical (non-enterprise) who really wants an extension will likely be able to install a specific version of the product if it is required. It is just a download. Good luck! Regards, -Keith - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice -- Andrew Pitonyak My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt Info: http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
Re: [tdf-discuss] macro compatibility between LO and AOO?
On 4/03/2013 8:27, M. Fioretti wrote: On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 08:16:25 AM +0100, Fernand Vanrie wrote: 99% percent , changes comes and will come from incompatiliteis in de API. for now this is OK, small changes from version to version, but nothing who not can been repaired or handled with the code( basic) itself I knew that. The sense of my question is, is there is a list of things to avoid beforehand, rather than wait that they break and fix the code? thats more a question for the developers list . LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org and fore the aOO counterpart ooo-...@incubator.apache.org Thanks, Marco ___ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
