Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
2013/7/31 Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org On 30/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: If your extension is compatible with AOO 4.0, please take a moment to update the extension's compatibility information so that end-users will know it works with the latest release. If your extension is not compatible Is it clear how to do this? Is there any doc we should point them to for this? The best resource we have at the moment is Hanya's list of API changes, on the mwiki. I linked to it from http://wiki.openoffice.org/**wiki/Extensions/Extensions_** and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0 I have updated the email's text accordingly, including also Rob's suggestion about the title. The emails have been sent already. Roberto Due to the several messages already seen about this topic, I added the Extensions compatibility to the Release Notes at https://cwiki.apache.org/**confluence/display/OOOUSERS/** AOO+4.0+Release+Noteshttps://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes giving also a link to the above page. 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
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 30/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: If your extension is compatible with AOO 4.0, please take a moment to update the extension's compatibility information so that end-users will know it works with the latest release. If your extension is not compatible Is it clear how to do this? Is there any doc we should point them to for this? The best resource we have at the moment is Hanya's list of API changes, on the mwiki. I linked to it from http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0 Due to the several messages already seen about this topic, I added the Extensions compatibility to the Release Notes at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes giving also a link to the above page. Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Hi, On 31.07.2013 13:12, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 30/07/2013 Rob Weir wrote: On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: If your extension is compatible with AOO 4.0, please take a moment to update the extension's compatibility information so that end-users will know it works with the latest release. If your extension is not compatible Is it clear how to do this? Is there any doc we should point them to for this? The best resource we have at the moment is Hanya's list of API changes, on the mwiki. I linked to it from http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0 I have added some words about the user profile migration which handles user-installed extensions. Best regards, Oliver. Due to the several messages already seen about this topic, I added the Extensions compatibility to the Release Notes at https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes giving also a link to the above page. Regards, Andrea. - 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: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
2013/7/29 Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is up-to-date. For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if their extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension page accordingly. Does it sound like a plan? Reminders are good. So what do we want to tell them, does anyone want to craft a draft message for AOOE authors? Subject: About Apache OpenOffice New Release and Updating your Extension's Compatibility Info Dear OpenOffice.org Extensions author, As you may have heard, Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is now out, and we'd like to invite you to test your own extension and figure out if it is or is not compatible with Apache OpenOffice 4.0 and its new APIs. If your extension is compatible with AOO 4.0, please take a moment to update the extension's compatibility information so that end-users will know it works with the latest release. If your extension is not compatible we'd encourage you to release a new version if you have time, or ask people to help you with that at the API mailing-list (http://openoffice.apache .org/mailing-lists.html#api-mailing-list-public). How do you like this? Roberto Roberto -Rob Roberto 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/29 Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is up-to-date. For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if their extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension page accordingly. Does it sound like a plan? Reminders are good. So what do we want to tell them, does anyone want to craft a draft message for AOOE authors? Subject: About Apache OpenOffice New Release and Updating your Extension's Compatibility Info Dear OpenOffice.org Extensions author, Maybe just OpenOffice Extensions author? As you may have heard, Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is now out, and we'd like to invite you to test your own extension and figure out if it is or is not compatible with Apache OpenOffice 4.0 and its new APIs. If your extension is compatible with AOO 4.0, please take a moment to update the extension's compatibility information so that end-users will know it works with the latest release. If your extension is not compatible Is it clear how to do this? Is there any doc we should point them to for this? we'd encourage you to release a new version if you have time, or ask people to help you with that at the API mailing-list (http://openoffice.apache .org/mailing-lists.html#api-mailing-list-public). How do you like this? Good. -Rob Roberto Roberto -Rob Roberto 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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 - 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: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Top posting Same as Rob. Hagar Le 30/07/2013 15:55, Rob Weir a écrit : On Tue, Jul 30, 2013 at 9:30 AM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/29 Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is up-to-date. For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if their extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension page accordingly. Does it sound like a plan? Reminders are good. So what do we want to tell them, does anyone want to craft a draft message for AOOE authors? Subject: About Apache OpenOffice New Release and Updating your Extension's Compatibility Info Dear OpenOffice.org Extensions author, Maybe just OpenOffice Extensions author? As you may have heard, Apache OpenOffice 4.0 is now out, and we'd like to invite you to test your own extension and figure out if it is or is not compatible with Apache OpenOffice 4.0 and its new APIs. If your extension is compatible with AOO 4.0, please take a moment to update the extension's compatibility information so that end-users will know it works with the latest release. If your extension is not compatible Is it clear how to do this? Is there any doc we should point them to for this? we'd encourage you to release a new version if you have time, or ask people to help you with that at the API mailing-list (http://openoffice.apache .org/mailing-lists.html#api-mailing-list-public). How do you like this? Good. -Rob Roberto Roberto -Rob Roberto 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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 - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail:
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is up-to-date. For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if their extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension page accordingly. Does it sound like a plan? Reminders are good. So what do we want to tell them, does anyone want to craft a draft message for AOOE authors? Roberto -Rob Roberto 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 26/07/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: Here we are. The first messages (ML and forum) about incompatibility are coming. I'm keeping http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Extensions/Extensions_and_Apache_OpenOffice_4.0 up-to-date with what is reported on this list. Feel free to collect further information there. A quick tutorial on how to update the extension in case authors want to make the change urgently? I don't have one, but it would belong to that page to. There's only a TODO so far (and I don't know the exact details, otherwise I would have written it). Regards, Andrea. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is up-to-date. For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if their extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension page accordingly. Does it sound like a plan? Roberto 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Sat, Jul 27, 2013 at 4:59 PM, Roberto Galoppini roberto.galopp...@gmail.com wrote: 2013/7/27 Rob Weir robw...@apache.org On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? The lack of compatibility is somehow implicit if you read that a given extension is compatible with OpenOffice 3.3 or AOO 3.4 and it doesn't mention AOO 4.0. See below about how to make sure such info is up-to-date. For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. We might resend an email to all Extensions' authors re-inviting them to subscribe to the API mailing-list and also inviting them to check if their extensions do work with AOO 4.0 and eventually update their extension page accordingly. Does it sound like a plan? Reminders are good. -Rob Roberto 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Top posting. Here we are. The first messages (ML and forum) about incompatibility are coming. The identified extensions (with toolbar and not updated for 4.0) should be at least tagged in the extension site as not compatible with 4.0. A quick tutorial on how to update the extension in case authors want to make the change urgently? Hagar Le 13/02/2013 00:00, Rob Weir a écrit : On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 12/02/2013 13:05, Rob Weir a écrit : I don't know. I was asking a question. But I think this is an important question: Why would an extension author not update their extension for AOO 4.0? Some hypothetical answers: 1) The extension is unmaintained One of the top reasons I guess. I myslef made extensions for my own use. I would have to tweak it. Since I've done them some time ago, I would have to dive again in specifications to make the changes. 2) The author cannot be located or we have no way to notify them of changes May be related to 1). 3) It is not clear to the author what technical changes are needed Was a communication plan issued to warn the authors about that? Don't tell me the release notes are for that. Almost nobody read the release notes (at least until the end). I guess that many extensions mlaintainers don't follow this dev list at all. No, no. The Release Notes are just what I proposed to collect these kinds of items. If we actually make breaking changes I'd expect to see a bigger attempt to reach out to extension authors: 1) blog post 2) post to API list and forum 3) maybe banner on the extensions website itself But this would make more sense after the changes are made and when we can point to complete instructions as well as developer snaphot build that the author can use to test their modifications. What is not clear is how much notice is needed. 1 month? 2 months? More? -Rob 4) There is not sufficient calendar time for the extension author to make the needed changes before we release, or the work required is too much for the author to fit into his schedule May be related to 3). Without any warning, few chances to implement any change. 5) The author attempts changes but they don't work or they introduce new problems Rather unlikely. 6) The results of not making the changes is not clear, so the author mistakenly thinks they are optional changes Or he just don't care anymore about the extension. So it needs to be taken over by someone else. But how we could know that? 7) Author has technical or account issues with the extensions website and is unable to upload a new version, and does not know where to get help. These are all possible concerns, but I think most of them can be managed with good communications and advance notice. There is also the possibility of: 8) Inconvenience -- it is natural for anyone to complain about needing to do additional work where they don't see the advantage. So it is natural that we will expect complaints, followed in the end by conformance with the required changes. Yes but what about the loss of confidence from users who will be first frustrated by an upgrade that breaks more things than fix them? Then they will have to do some homework to find out what the problem is (again, don't tell me about release notes). And wait in the end for someone to fix it. What if they do need their extensions meanwhile? One side aspect: what about extension update warning? If a new version is detected but the user doesn't upgrade to 4.0, are we sure that the minimal version will be checked first, before the new extension is installed by the user? Has he to download it before being warned that it's in fact not compatible with his current AOO/OOo version? I'm not against the change. I'm for a controlled one, that has no impact on end-users. So the main points are: communication to the extensions maintainers (what about the extensions hosted on their personal pages and not on sourceforge?), preparation of the updates and transition period. Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
2013/7/26 Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net Top posting. Here we are. The first messages (ML and forum) about incompatibility are coming. The identified extensions (with toolbar and not updated for 4.0) should be at least tagged in the extension site as not compatible with 4.0. This has been already done actually. To be more specific: A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. Roberto A quick tutorial on how to update the extension in case authors want to make the change urgently? Hagar Le 13/02/2013 00:00, Rob Weir a écrit : On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 12/02/2013 13:05, Rob Weir a écrit : I don't know. I was asking a question. But I think this is an important question: Why would an extension author not update their extension for AOO 4.0? Some hypothetical answers: 1) The extension is unmaintained One of the top reasons I guess. I myslef made extensions for my own use. I would have to tweak it. Since I've done them some time ago, I would have to dive again in specifications to make the changes. 2) The author cannot be located or we have no way to notify them of changes May be related to 1). 3) It is not clear to the author what technical changes are needed Was a communication plan issued to warn the authors about that? Don't tell me the release notes are for that. Almost nobody read the release notes (at least until the end). I guess that many extensions mlaintainers don't follow this dev list at all. No, no. The Release Notes are just what I proposed to collect these kinds of items. If we actually make breaking changes I'd expect to see a bigger attempt to reach out to extension authors: 1) blog post 2) post to API list and forum 3) maybe banner on the extensions website itself But this would make more sense after the changes are made and when we can point to complete instructions as well as developer snaphot build that the author can use to test their modifications. What is not clear is how much notice is needed. 1 month? 2 months? More? -Rob 4) There is not sufficient calendar time for the extension author to make the needed changes before we release, or the work required is too much for the author to fit into his schedule May be related to 3). Without any warning, few chances to implement any change. 5) The author attempts changes but they don't work or they introduce new problems Rather unlikely. 6) The results of not making the changes is not clear, so the author mistakenly thinks they are optional changes Or he just don't care anymore about the extension. So it needs to be taken over by someone else. But how we could know that? 7) Author has technical or account issues with the extensions website and is unable to upload a new version, and does not know where to get help. These are all possible concerns, but I think most of them can be managed with good communications and advance notice. There is also the possibility of: 8) Inconvenience -- it is natural for anyone to complain about needing to do additional work where they don't see the advantage. So it is natural that we will expect complaints, followed in the end by conformance with the required changes. Yes but what about the loss of confidence from users who will be first frustrated by an upgrade that breaks more things than fix them? Then they will have to do some homework to find out what the problem is (again, don't tell me about release notes). And wait in the end for someone to fix it. What if they do need their extensions meanwhile? One side aspect: what about extension update warning? If a new version is detected but the user doesn't upgrade to 4.0, are we sure that the minimal version will be checked first, before the new extension is installed by the user? Has he to download it before being warned that it's in fact not compatible with his current AOO/OOo version? I'm not against the change. I'm for a controlled one, that has no impact on end-users. So the main points are: communication to the extensions maintainers (what about the extensions hosted on their personal pages and not on sourceforge?), preparation of the updates and transition period. Hagar --**--**- To
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... Hagar - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@openoffice.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@openoffice.apache.org
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Fri, Jul 26, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 26/07/2013 15:40, Roberto Galoppini a écrit : A) a link to a version compatible with AOO 4.0 has been added for http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport and http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector B) 4.0 has been added to the list of possible compatibilities. For example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/287/releases doesn't enlist 4.0 among AOO compatible versions, while new extensions have that set, see for example http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/node/5644/releases. Note that it's up to the author to indicate his/her extension compatibility list, and he/she can update it without the need to upload the file again. But it means that the author has to be aware that there is a change and he has to update the relevant field. There is no script that could add the lack of compatibility if the extension has not been updated yet? For the record, in the case of the Lorem ipsum extension, the author doesn't seem to be willing to update it... If an extension is essentially abandoned then it is only a matter of time before it breaks. Either that or we put ourselves into a position where we can never evolve and improve our API. We should focus on the needs of active extension developers, not the inactive ones. This is what we did to keep extension authors in the loop: 1) We created a special mailing list, a...@openoffice.apache.org for discussions about extensions. 2) We worked with SourceForge to send an email to all registered extension authors to invite them to the new list. This was done before the *.openoffice.org email forwarder was shut down, so they all should have received the note. 3) We announce the 4.0 API changes on the API list and answered any questions that came up. True, not everyone is happy about the changes. But we tried to ensure that every active extension author was aware of the changes coming. Regards, -Rob Hagar - 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: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 4:49 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/25/13 4:36 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/21/13 10:05 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. This might be error prone, because the file can have any name, all it matters is the media type in the META-INF manifest and the OO registry package and name in the file itself. While it's highly rare to find a lala.lala, I've found an addons.xcu (in lowercase). No wonder there is no OfficeToolBar in this particular extension, but the extension does not work in AOO 4.0 due to API changes (what shows that the whole discussion centered on the schema change is full of ungrounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge on the subject). ignore case is probably a good idea, a complete different name is probably rather seldom. But from a technical point of view you are correct. We don't need exact data but it would be nice to get an impression how often it is used. it would definitely help to get an overview about which extension we are talking. Based on this info we could contact the owners and can inform them about the change. Below the list of Extensions top downloads during the last month: #1 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3620 Monthly: 1725 #2 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/137 Monthly: 1583 #3 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4303 Monthly: 1307 #4 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/496 Monthly: 1221 #5 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/415 Monthly: 649 #6 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4016 Monthly: 645 #7 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/567 Monthly: 424 #8 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2659 Monthly: 399 #9 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1719 Monthly: 368 #10 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5510 Monthly: 330 #11 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/383 Monthly: 328 #12 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2649 Monthly: 311 #13 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2355 Monthly: 224 #14 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3023 Monthly: 218 #15 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5305 Monthly: 203 #16 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/26 Monthly: 189 #17 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1210 Monthly: 173 #18 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3286 Monthly: 167 #19 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/545 Monthly: 163 #20 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4710 Monthly: 156 #21 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3902 Monthly: 153 #22 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5595 Monthly: 152 #23 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4849 Monthly: 145 #24 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2771 Monthly: 135 #25 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4410 Monthly: 135 #26 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5151 Monthly: 133 #27 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2169 Monthly: 131 #28 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/283 Monthly: 130 #29 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3661 Monthly: 122 #30 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3700 Monthly: 119 #31 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4213 Monthly: 117 #32 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4658 Monthly: 117 #33 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2201 Monthly: 111 #34 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1798 Monthly: 89 #35 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5392 Monthly: 88 #36 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5317 Monthly: 87 #37 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/847 Monthly: 83 #38 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1039 Monthly: 80 #39 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/207 Monthly: 76 #40 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4739 Monthly: 65 #41 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/640 Monthly: 64 #42 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1864 Monthly: 61 #43 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3909 Monthly: 60 #44 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4150 Monthly: 54 #45 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4798 Monthly: 54 #46 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2085 Monthly: 50 #47 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/603 Monthly: 49 #48 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4979 Monthly: 48 #49
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Thu, Mar 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM, Herbert Dürr h...@apache.org wrote: On 2013/03/07 11:41 AM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: Below the list of Extensions top downloads during the last month: #1 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3620 Monthly: 1725 [...] #50 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3409 Monthly: 42 The extension popularity list is very interesting. Thanks Roberto! Keep in mind those are the most popular among Extensions containing Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar. The most popular in absolute terms are found at http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/most_popular/month For easier consumption I annotated the list with the extension names: #1 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3620 Monthly: 1725 (WriterRotationTool) #2 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/137 Monthly: 1583 (OOo2GoogleDocs) #3 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4303 Monthly: 1307 (Diagram) #4 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/496 Monthly: 1221 (Oracle Presentation Minimizer) #5 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/415 Monthly: 649 (CropOOo) #6 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4016 Monthly: 645 (Typography toolbar) #7 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/567 Monthly: 424 (Convert Text To Number (and date)) #8 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2659 Monthly: 399 (Readability Report) #9 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1719 Monthly: 368 (MultiSave) #10 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5510 Monthly: 330 (PixCompress) #11 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/383 Monthly: 328 (Template Changer) #12 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2649 Monthly: 311 (Read Text) #13 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2355 Monthly: 224 (CLC09 quick_formule) #14 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3023 Monthly: 218 (RGB) #15 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5305 Monthly: 203 (SmART Extension en Español) #16 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/26 Monthly: 189 (Sun Weblog Publisher) #17 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1210 Monthly: 173 (GeOOo : Create Thematic maps with Ooo) #18 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3286 Monthly: 167 (Change Picture) #19 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/545 Monthly: 163 (eVoice) #20 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4710 Monthly: 156 (PixelPluz Image Editor for Writer) #21 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3902 Monthly: 153 (EPUB Generator) #22 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5595 Monthly: 152 (Basic IDE Tools) #23 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4849 Monthly: 145 (Paste From Web) #24 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2771 Monthly: 135 (Chiffres en lettres) #25 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4410 Monthly: 135 (Export As Doc) #26 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5151 Monthly: 133 (OCR helper) #27 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2169 Monthly: 131 (Thousands Separator) #28 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/283 Monthly: 130 (MultiDiff) #29 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3661 Monthly: 122 (TradutorOOoNote) #30 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3700 Monthly: 119 (Versatile Calculator for Open office) #31 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4213 Monthly: 117 (Copy only visible cells) #32 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4658 Monthly: 117 (Solvit (Advanced Solver of System of Equations - Linear/Nonlinear)) #33 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2201 Monthly: 111 (OOoFormulaEditor) #34 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1798 Monthly: 89 (CalcEasyToolbar) #35 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5392 Monthly: 88 (IBM Connections Connector for Apache OpenOffice) #36 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/5317 Monthly: 87 (MMove) #37 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/847 Monthly: 83 (OOoTranslit) #38 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1039 Monthly: 80 (Color2Rows) #39 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/207 Monthly: 76 (BorderLiner) #40 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4739 Monthly: 65 (Mini-Calculator) #41 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/640 Monthly: 64 (ImpressTextResizer) #42 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/1864 Monthly: 61 (OOoLilyPond) #43 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/3909 Monthly: 60 (eLAIX) #44 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4150 Monthly: 54 (Photo Album ES) #45 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/4798 Monthly: 54 (CleanDoc) #46 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/2085 Monthly: 50 (WiRWiB - Wordnet Based suggestive writing aid for creative writing in English and Hindi) #47 http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/node/603
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/21/13 10:05 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. This might be error prone, because the file can have any name, all it matters is the media type in the META-INF manifest and the OO registry package and name in the file itself. While it's highly rare to find a lala.lala, I've found an addons.xcu (in lowercase). No wonder there is no OfficeToolBar in this particular extension, but the extension does not work in AOO 4.0 due to API changes (what shows that the whole discussion centered on the schema change is full of ungrounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge on the subject). ignore case is probably a good idea, a complete different name is probably rather seldom. But from a technical point of view you are correct. We don't need exact data but it would be nice to get an impression how often it is used. Juergen 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? If you could run a short script to check it, it would be very useful for us to make a final decision. Officetoolbar used within 137 extensions (553 releases). Maybe you can also provide some numbers about their downloads. Only th extensions that contain an Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar That's not really trivial, but it would be easier to figure out how many among top 50 contain Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar. Would it make the trick? If not I'll work on how to compute those numbers. Let me know, Roberto It would also be interesting to know the last time the extension was updated; besides that expecting unmaintained extensions to work on a new major release might not be plausible, the extension is likely not be adapted to any change if it is unmaintained, no matter how popular it is (example: the most popular, Oracle PDF Import Extension, Downloads: Week: 12,706, unmaintained since Dec. 2010, seems to be broken - according to the first three comments). Regards -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/25/13 4:36 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/21/13 10:05 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. This might be error prone, because the file can have any name, all it matters is the media type in the META-INF manifest and the OO registry package and name in the file itself. While it's highly rare to find a lala.lala, I've found an addons.xcu (in lowercase). No wonder there is no OfficeToolBar in this particular extension, but the extension does not work in AOO 4.0 due to API changes (what shows that the whole discussion centered on the schema change is full of ungrounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge on the subject). ignore case is probably a good idea, a complete different name is probably rather seldom. But from a technical point of view you are correct. We don't need exact data but it would be nice to get an impression how often it is used. it would definitely help to get an overview about which extension we are talking. Based on this info we could contact the owners and can inform them about the change. Juergen Juergen 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? If you could run a short script to check it, it would be very useful for us to make a final decision. Officetoolbar used within 137 extensions (553 releases). Maybe you can also provide some numbers about their downloads. Only th extensions that contain an Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar That's not really trivial, but it would be easier to figure out how many among top 50 contain Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar. Would it make the trick? If not I'll work on how to compute those numbers. Let me know, Roberto It would also be interesting to know the last time the extension was updated; besides that expecting unmaintained extensions to work on a new major release might not be plausible, the extension is likely not be adapted to any change if it is unmaintained, no matter how popular it is (example: the most popular, Oracle PDF Import Extension, Downloads: Week: 12,706, unmaintained since Dec. 2010, seems to be broken - according to the first three comments). Regards
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/20/13 8:14 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 2/17/13 10:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 12/02/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: If we support both the underlying code would be more complex, slower and more ugly to maintain. OK. I had understood this part, so let's have a detailed description of the impact before we see how to handle this. The whole discussion is really based on assumption. We can ask our friends of SourceForge to analyze by a script all extensions and check if they contain an Addon.xcu or not. All developers, maintainers of extensions with Addon.xcu can we contact and can inform them about the proposed change and how to adapt the xcu. Good ideas, and we could maybe consider to add an Outdated notice, similar to the wiki pages, to extensions that contain an Addons.xcu. So, to start getting some facts, what should the script do? Unzip the extension and look in the expanded tree for a file named exactly Addons.xcu (not Addon.xcu, right)? The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? If you could run a short script to check it, it would be very useful for us to make a final decision. Maybe you can also provide some numbers about their downloads. Only th extensions that contain an Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar Juergen Roberto I will provide an example showing the change as part of the http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Incompatible_API_changes See also http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Concepts_API_changes Shall we also ask to check how many extensions provide an OpenOffice.org-maximal-version parameter as listed at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements ? make sense but it is not necessary, this is something that the extension developer should decide. It's a recommendation to use it to ensure that an extension works with the next version. It can be seen as part of the QA for a serious extension ;-) In light of Ariel's detailed analysis of the Oracle extensions (thanks!), what does Addons.cxu but *only* with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? I assume you meant Addons.xcu, but what does only with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? That these extensions will not be affected by this particular change? Or that updating them will be easier? exactly, we have 2 ways to integrate here. One is to create a completely new toolbar with a new name. And the second one is to merge into existing toolbars at a specific position. This can be very useful and is not affected by this change. We will have other elements to consider before assessing the impact on users (for example, the website does not currently filter by OpenOffice version; and some popular extensions, like LanguageTool, are not hosted in the official repository), but it's very good if we can have some real numbers to start. well we can of course blow up this to whatever we want. There is a lot of room for improvements in many areas. We should not mix too many things. An improved extension repo with a hopefully working extension update mechanism. Here extensions that are not supported for 4.0 could be already filtered on the server and there is no demand to transport any info about this extensions to a 4.0 office. An improved extension mechanism where we would have an improved workflow and more features. Browsing extensions directly from the office, a configurable extension repo, dependencies to other extensions, ... Juergen
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. This might be error prone, because the file can have any name, all it matters is the media type in the META-INF manifest and the OO registry package and name in the file itself. While it's highly rare to find a lala.lala, I've found an addons.xcu (in lowercase). No wonder there is no OfficeToolBar in this particular extension, but the extension does not work in AOO 4.0 due to API changes (what shows that the whole discussion centered on the schema change is full of ungrounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge on the subject). 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? If you could run a short script to check it, it would be very useful for us to make a final decision. Maybe you can also provide some numbers about their downloads. Only th extensions that contain an Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar It would also be interesting to know the last time the extension was updated; besides that expecting unmaintained extensions to work on a new major release might not be plausible, the extension is likely not be adapted to any change if it is unmaintained, no matter how popular it is (example: the most popular, Oracle PDF Import Extension, Downloads: Week: 12,706, unmaintained since Dec. 2010, seems to be broken - according to the first three comments). Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpBotwNCYCTn.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Hi, It would also be interesting to know the last time the extension was updated; besides that expecting unmaintained extensions to work on a new major release might not be plausible, the extension is likely not be adapted to any change if it is unmaintained, no matter how popular it is (example: the most popular, Oracle PDF Import Extension, Downloads: Week: 12,706, unmaintained since Dec. 2010, seems to be broken - according to the first three comments). within the last days I've installed the Windows variant of the PDF Import Extension several times on different systems (Win7, Win8) and all of those installations worked like a charm. Kind regards, Joost
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/21/13 10:05 AM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 09:22:34AM +0100, Jürgen Schmidt wrote: The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. This might be error prone, because the file can have any name, all it matters is the media type in the META-INF manifest and the OO registry package and name in the file itself. While it's highly rare to find a lala.lala, I've found an addons.xcu (in lowercase). No wonder there is no OfficeToolBar in this particular extension, but the extension does not work in AOO 4.0 due to API changes (what shows that the whole discussion centered on the schema change is full of ungrounded assumptions, and lack of knowledge on the subject). ignore case is probably a good idea, a complete different name is probably rather seldom. But from a technical point of view you are correct. We don't need exact data but it would be nice to get an impression how often it is used. Juergen 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? If you could run a short script to check it, it would be very useful for us to make a final decision. Maybe you can also provide some numbers about their downloads. Only th extensions that contain an Addons.xcu with OfficeToolBar It would also be interesting to know the last time the extension was updated; besides that expecting unmaintained extensions to work on a new major release might not be plausible, the extension is likely not be adapted to any change if it is unmaintained, no matter how popular it is (example: the most popular, Oracle PDF Import Extension, Downloads: Week: 12,706, unmaintained since Dec. 2010, seems to be broken - according to the first three comments). Regards
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.comwrote: On 2/17/13 10:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 12/02/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: If we support both the underlying code would be more complex, slower and more ugly to maintain. OK. I had understood this part, so let's have a detailed description of the impact before we see how to handle this. The whole discussion is really based on assumption. We can ask our friends of SourceForge to analyze by a script all extensions and check if they contain an Addon.xcu or not. All developers, maintainers of extensions with Addon.xcu can we contact and can inform them about the proposed change and how to adapt the xcu. Good ideas, and we could maybe consider to add an Outdated notice, similar to the wiki pages, to extensions that contain an Addons.xcu. So, to start getting some facts, what should the script do? Unzip the extension and look in the expanded tree for a file named exactly Addons.xcu (not Addon.xcu, right)? The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. 242 extensions contain addons.xcu stensioni (total: 1065 releases), 430 estensions don't (total: 1660 releases). Do you want us to check how many contain OfficeToolBar? Roberto I will provide an example showing the change as part of the http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Incompatible_API_changes See also http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Concepts_API_changes Shall we also ask to check how many extensions provide an OpenOffice.org-maximal-version parameter as listed at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements ? make sense but it is not necessary, this is something that the extension developer should decide. It's a recommendation to use it to ensure that an extension works with the next version. It can be seen as part of the QA for a serious extension ;-) In light of Ariel's detailed analysis of the Oracle extensions (thanks!), what does Addons.cxu but *only* with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? I assume you meant Addons.xcu, but what does only with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? That these extensions will not be affected by this particular change? Or that updating them will be easier? exactly, we have 2 ways to integrate here. One is to create a completely new toolbar with a new name. And the second one is to merge into existing toolbars at a specific position. This can be very useful and is not affected by this change. We will have other elements to consider before assessing the impact on users (for example, the website does not currently filter by OpenOffice version; and some popular extensions, like LanguageTool, are not hosted in the official repository), but it's very good if we can have some real numbers to start. well we can of course blow up this to whatever we want. There is a lot of room for improvements in many areas. We should not mix too many things. An improved extension repo with a hopefully working extension update mechanism. Here extensions that are not supported for 4.0 could be already filtered on the server and there is no demand to transport any info about this extensions to a 4.0 office. An improved extension mechanism where we would have an improved workflow and more features. Browsing extensions directly from the office, a configurable extension repo, dependencies to other extensions, ... Juergen -- This e- mail message is intended only for the named recipient(s) above. It may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this e-mail and any attachment(s) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and delete the message and any attachment(s) from your system. Thank you.
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 12/02/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: If we support both the underlying code would be more complex, slower and more ugly to maintain. OK. I had understood this part, so let's have a detailed description of the impact before we see how to handle this. The whole discussion is really based on assumption. We can ask our friends of SourceForge to analyze by a script all extensions and check if they contain an Addon.xcu or not. All developers, maintainers of extensions with Addon.xcu can we contact and can inform them about the proposed change and how to adapt the xcu. Good ideas, and we could maybe consider to add an Outdated notice, similar to the wiki pages, to extensions that contain an Addons.xcu. So, to start getting some facts, what should the script do? Unzip the extension and look in the expanded tree for a file named exactly Addons.xcu (not Addon.xcu, right)? Shall we also ask to check how many extensions provide an OpenOffice.org-maximal-version parameter as listed at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements ? In light of Ariel's detailed analysis of the Oracle extensions (thanks!), what does Addons.cxu but *only* with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? I assume you meant Addons.xcu, but what does only with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? That these extensions will not be affected by this particular change? Or that updating them will be easier? We will have other elements to consider before assessing the impact on users (for example, the website does not currently filter by OpenOffice version; and some popular extensions, like LanguageTool, are not hosted in the official repository), but it's very good if we can have some real numbers to start. Regards, Andrea.
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Rob Weir robw...@apache.org wrote: My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no doubt in the user's mind, even if they do not read the release notes, that the extensions are gone. Just copy the Firefox way A dialog reading something like Oh, we´ve detected some extesions, checking for compatibility with 4.0... followed by the following extensions are not compatible with 4.0 and have been disabled, you might want to check [url] for newer versions compatible with 4.0. Of course, automated checking of each extension on a central database (like FF does) would be great, but the half-solution (informative message) above is better than nothing. Just my $0.02 FC -- During times of Universal Deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act Durante épocas de Engaño Universal, decir la verdad se convierte en un Acto Revolucionario - George Orwell
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/17/13 10:36 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 12/02/2013 Jürgen Schmidt wrote: If we support both the underlying code would be more complex, slower and more ugly to maintain. OK. I had understood this part, so let's have a detailed description of the impact before we see how to handle this. The whole discussion is really based on assumption. We can ask our friends of SourceForge to analyze by a script all extensions and check if they contain an Addon.xcu or not. All developers, maintainers of extensions with Addon.xcu can we contact and can inform them about the proposed change and how to adapt the xcu. Good ideas, and we could maybe consider to add an Outdated notice, similar to the wiki pages, to extensions that contain an Addons.xcu. So, to start getting some facts, what should the script do? Unzip the extension and look in the expanded tree for a file named exactly Addons.xcu (not Addon.xcu, right)? The first step should be a simple check if an Addons.xcu is contained at all. Something like unzip -l extension | grep Addons.xcu should be enough. The second step if an Addons.xcu is contained is to check for the node oor:name=OfficeToolBar entry. Only if this entry exists the Addons.xcu the extension has to be updated. I will provide an example showing the change as part of the http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Incompatible_API_changes See also http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/API/Concepts_API_changes Shall we also ask to check how many extensions provide an OpenOffice.org-maximal-version parameter as listed at http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Extensions/Description_of_XML_Elements ? make sense but it is not necessary, this is something that the extension developer should decide. It's a recommendation to use it to ensure that an extension works with the next version. It can be seen as part of the QA for a serious extension ;-) In light of Ariel's detailed analysis of the Oracle extensions (thanks!), what does Addons.cxu but *only* with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? I assume you meant Addons.xcu, but what does only with OfficeMenuBarMerging node mean? That these extensions will not be affected by this particular change? Or that updating them will be easier? exactly, we have 2 ways to integrate here. One is to create a completely new toolbar with a new name. And the second one is to merge into existing toolbars at a specific position. This can be very useful and is not affected by this change. We will have other elements to consider before assessing the impact on users (for example, the website does not currently filter by OpenOffice version; and some popular extensions, like LanguageTool, are not hosted in the official repository), but it's very good if we can have some real numbers to start. well we can of course blow up this to whatever we want. There is a lot of room for improvements in many areas. We should not mix too many things. An improved extension repo with a hopefully working extension update mechanism. Here extensions that are not supported for 4.0 could be already filtered on the server and there is no demand to transport any info about this extensions to a 4.0 office. An improved extension mechanism where we would have an improved workflow and more features. Browsing extensions directly from the office, a configurable extension repo, dependencies to other extensions, ... Juergen
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/12/13 12:03 AM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: On 11/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've done that too. But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling extensions and losing them completely (waiting that someone dare update them). The real issue is here indeed. Reinstalling won't be perceived as a big problem. But the fact that reinstalling the same extension won't work will be a problem. Most of the extensions hosted on extensions.openoffice.org won't be updated, and extensions.openoffice.org does not support filtering by version (and anyway the information would be missing in current releases). The top five extensions at http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/most_popular total 1 million downloads per year, which could give some backing to the nightmare support scenario Hagar envisions. Ariel posted to the API list saying that the two reasonable options in his opinion are either to keep or revert his entire change (Hagar, please note that Ariel asked not to start a discussion here and now, and mentioned he cannot be responsive at the moment; anyway...). But if there is a way, even using redundant code, to still support the old and new toolbar handling this would be very useful to end-users. From the FOSDEM talks I understood there could the possibility to still support both mechanisms (and of course, warn users when the deprecated one is used). maybe you understand it wrong, no warning. If we support both the underlying code would be more complex, slower and more ugly to maintain. and Ariel pointed already out that he is not willing to support both based on this fact. Either the old or the new mechanism, or somebody else step forward and implement the change. The whole discussion is really based on assumption. We can ask our friends of SourceForge to analyze by a script all extensions and check if they contain an Addon.xcu or not. All developers, maintainers of extensions with Addon.xcu can we contact and can inform them about the proposed change and how to adapt the xcu. Juergen
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/12/13 12:41 AM, Rob Weir wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 11/02/2013 22:46, Rob Weir a écrit : My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no doubt in the user's mind, even if they do not read the release notes, that the extensions are gone. [...] Again, my impression is that users will lose their extensions and need to reinstall them, even if we do not make any API changes. [...] I think a clean break with the past profile helps us avoid the current generation of crash issues. We get to start clean rather than deal with the many upgrade paths: No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've done that too. But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling extensions and losing them completely (waiting that someone dare update them). Is that what we're really facing? Are you saying that extension author will not update their extensions if they become incompatible? Is that what we think? I agree that this would be a bad situation. But is it the likely situation we would face? The authors of the top extensions would not update? If that is the case than we can stop to talk about extensions at all. I would not spent any further minute to make the life of extension developers easier. Juergen
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/12/13 1:42 PM, Joost Andrae wrote: Hi, in the moment I have just one question in mind: Who's going to adapt the Sun/Oracle extensions that contain Addons.xcu like presentation-minimizer.oxt ? well the extensions where we have the source code can be changed by volunteers. Maybe directly at Apache or as Google code project when there are license incompatible dependencies. Everything else is unclear and I doubt that Oracle has interest in updating them. And nobody else can do that. The best thing would be to start new projects providing similar functionality but where the code is available and under a proper license. Unmaintained extensions are a general problem and should not have influence on any decision. Juergen 8) Inconvenience -- it is natural for anyone to complain about needing to do additional work where they don't see the advantage. So it is natural that we will expect complaints, followed in the end by conformance with the required changes. What is totally unclear to me is whether we are facing #8 only, or whether we have any of the other concerns. One option for #8 is to add a nice new feature or capability to the API so extension author will *want* to update. Kind regards, Joost
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On 2/12/13 2:15 PM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: On Tue, 12 Feb 2013 14:07:59 +0100 Jürgen Schmidt jogischm...@gmail.com wrote: On 2/12/13 1:42 PM, Joost Andrae wrote: Hi, in the moment I have just one question in mind: Who's going to adapt the Sun/Oracle extensions that contain Addons.xcu like presentation-minimizer.oxt ? well the extensions where we have the source code can be changed by volunteers. Maybe directly at Apache or as Google code project when there are license incompatible dependencies. Everything else is unclear and I doubt that Oracle has interest in updating them. And nobody else can do that. The best thing would be to start new projects providing similar functionality but where the code is available and under a proper license. Unmaintained extensions are a general problem and should not have influence on any decision. There are already reports on incompatabilities with LibO 4.0 and some existing extensions. One thread, for example, at http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?f=101t=59595 Might there be possibility for a shim to be written to sit between Addons.xcu and AOO 4.0? I don't know, I haven't looked into it but I know that they have changed API's more radical. No surprise for me. Juergen
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 01:42:42PM +0100, Joost Andrae wrote: Hi, in the moment I have just one question in mind: Who's going to adapt the Sun/Oracle extensions that contain Addons.xcu like presentation-minimizer.oxt ? This extension does not provide a toolbar of its own, it uses only menubar merging. This is the situation of Oracle extensions: * No longer maintained: - Oracle PDF Import Extension (Nr. 1 in popularity) http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/pdfimport 2008-Oct-29 No Addons.xcu Only OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=3.0 Reading the comments on the extension site, it seems quite broken. Link to the old OOo mailing list should be removed Incompatible license in dependencies - MySQL Connector for OpenOffice.org (Nr. 13 in popularity) http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/mysql_connector 2011-Jan-05 No Addons.xcu Only OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=3.1 Incompatible license in dependencies - Oracle Report Builder (Nr. 15 in popularity) http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/reportdesign 2010-Dec-14 No Addons.xcu Only OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=3.2 Incompatible license in dependencies * Still maintained: - Oracle Presenter Console (Nr. 22 in popularity) http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/presenter-screen 2010-Nov-25 No Addons.xcu Only OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=3.3 Compatible license - Oracle Presentation Minimizer (Nr. 35 in popularity) http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/project/PresentationMinimizer 2010-Nov-21 Addons.cxu but *only* with OfficeMenuBarMerging node Only OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=2.3 Compatible license - Sun Wiki Publisher http://extensions.services.openoffice.org/en/project/wikipublisher 2009-Jun-09 Addons.cxu but *only* with OfficeMenuBarMerging node Only OpenOffice.org-minimal-version value=3.0 Compatible license Regards -- Ariel Constenla-Haile La Plata, Argentina pgpxmpVJMhKE6.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Le 12/02/2013 13:05, Rob Weir a écrit : I don't know. I was asking a question. But I think this is an important question: Why would an extension author not update their extension for AOO 4.0? Some hypothetical answers: 1) The extension is unmaintained One of the top reasons I guess. I myslef made extensions for my own use. I would have to tweak it. Since I've done them some time ago, I would have to dive again in specifications to make the changes. 2) The author cannot be located or we have no way to notify them of changes May be related to 1). 3) It is not clear to the author what technical changes are needed Was a communication plan issued to warn the authors about that? Don't tell me the release notes are for that. Almost nobody read the release notes (at least until the end). I guess that many extensions mlaintainers don't follow this dev list at all. 4) There is not sufficient calendar time for the extension author to make the needed changes before we release, or the work required is too much for the author to fit into his schedule May be related to 3). Without any warning, few chances to implement any change. 5) The author attempts changes but they don't work or they introduce new problems Rather unlikely. 6) The results of not making the changes is not clear, so the author mistakenly thinks they are optional changes Or he just don't care anymore about the extension. So it needs to be taken over by someone else. But how we could know that? 7) Author has technical or account issues with the extensions website and is unable to upload a new version, and does not know where to get help. These are all possible concerns, but I think most of them can be managed with good communications and advance notice. There is also the possibility of: 8) Inconvenience -- it is natural for anyone to complain about needing to do additional work where they don't see the advantage. So it is natural that we will expect complaints, followed in the end by conformance with the required changes. Yes but what about the loss of confidence from users who will be first frustrated by an upgrade that breaks more things than fix them? Then they will have to do some homework to find out what the problem is (again, don't tell me about release notes). And wait in the end for someone to fix it. What if they do need their extensions meanwhile? One side aspect: what about extension update warning? If a new version is detected but the user doesn't upgrade to 4.0, are we sure that the minimal version will be checked first, before the new extension is installed by the user? Has he to download it before being warned that it's in fact not compatible with his current AOO/OOo version? I'm not against the change. I'm for a controlled one, that has no impact on end-users. So the main points are: communication to the extensions maintainers (what about the extensions hosted on their personal pages and not on sourceforge?), preparation of the updates and transition period. Hagar
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 5:31 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: Le 12/02/2013 13:05, Rob Weir a écrit : I don't know. I was asking a question. But I think this is an important question: Why would an extension author not update their extension for AOO 4.0? Some hypothetical answers: 1) The extension is unmaintained One of the top reasons I guess. I myslef made extensions for my own use. I would have to tweak it. Since I've done them some time ago, I would have to dive again in specifications to make the changes. 2) The author cannot be located or we have no way to notify them of changes May be related to 1). 3) It is not clear to the author what technical changes are needed Was a communication plan issued to warn the authors about that? Don't tell me the release notes are for that. Almost nobody read the release notes (at least until the end). I guess that many extensions mlaintainers don't follow this dev list at all. No, no. The Release Notes are just what I proposed to collect these kinds of items. If we actually make breaking changes I'd expect to see a bigger attempt to reach out to extension authors: 1) blog post 2) post to API list and forum 3) maybe banner on the extensions website itself But this would make more sense after the changes are made and when we can point to complete instructions as well as developer snaphot build that the author can use to test their modifications. What is not clear is how much notice is needed. 1 month? 2 months? More? -Rob 4) There is not sufficient calendar time for the extension author to make the needed changes before we release, or the work required is too much for the author to fit into his schedule May be related to 3). Without any warning, few chances to implement any change. 5) The author attempts changes but they don't work or they introduce new problems Rather unlikely. 6) The results of not making the changes is not clear, so the author mistakenly thinks they are optional changes Or he just don't care anymore about the extension. So it needs to be taken over by someone else. But how we could know that? 7) Author has technical or account issues with the extensions website and is unable to upload a new version, and does not know where to get help. These are all possible concerns, but I think most of them can be managed with good communications and advance notice. There is also the possibility of: 8) Inconvenience -- it is natural for anyone to complain about needing to do additional work where they don't see the advantage. So it is natural that we will expect complaints, followed in the end by conformance with the required changes. Yes but what about the loss of confidence from users who will be first frustrated by an upgrade that breaks more things than fix them? Then they will have to do some homework to find out what the problem is (again, don't tell me about release notes). And wait in the end for someone to fix it. What if they do need their extensions meanwhile? One side aspect: what about extension update warning? If a new version is detected but the user doesn't upgrade to 4.0, are we sure that the minimal version will be checked first, before the new extension is installed by the user? Has he to download it before being warned that it's in fact not compatible with his current AOO/OOo version? I'm not against the change. I'm for a controlled one, that has no impact on end-users. So the main points are: communication to the extensions maintainers (what about the extensions hosted on their personal pages and not on sourceforge?), preparation of the updates and transition period. Hagar
4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the problem of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it affects only the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the dictionaries, I guess that it makes a good deal of them still. The problem has been raised by Bernard Marcelly here: http://www.mail-archive.com/api@openoffice.apache.org/msg00107.html But as said by Ariel, this is not an API change (so shouldn't the discussion on the API list be dropped and discussed here instead?): http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg04042.html Rob has opened a wiki page related but without this topic (as for now): http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg03976.html Basically (my understanding, don't hesitate to correct me): - For a [minor] issue in the file structure, all the current extensions with a toolbar MUST be updated - Updated and new extensions won't be compatible with former versions of AOO/OOo For all the details, refer to the link given above. Consequences: - Users upgrading to 4.x will lose such extensions (certainly with no warning since very few users read the release notes) - Both versions of each extension will have to be maintained as long as pre-4.0 versions are still in use So, are all the committers aware of this change and do they all agree about such a major change? I know that there is a topic on the API list (link given above) but I'm not sure it has the same audience as the dev list (number of subscribers I mean). Since this is a major change, I think it deserves a discussion on the dev mailing list. I know that if this change is implemented, the forums will be quickly flooded with users disappointed to have lost their extensions. So this is the topic I will point to in order to explain the dev community rationale about that. I know that code change is sometimes required. But can we take into account the end-user impact here? There may be some transition solution with a deprecated method that would be still valid for some time (let's say until version 5.x for example) with a massive communication to all the accounts having uploaded an extension? Hagar
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Hagar Delest hagar.del...@laposte.net wrote: You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the problem of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it affects only the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the dictionaries, I guess that it makes a good deal of them still. The problem has been raised by Bernard Marcelly here: http://www.mail-archive.com/api@openoffice.apache.org/msg00107.html But as said by Ariel, this is not an API change (so shouldn't the discussion on the API list be dropped and discussed here instead?): http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg04042.html Rob has opened a wiki page related but without this topic (as for now): http://www.mail-archive.com/dev@openoffice.apache.org/msg03976.html I added a section to the existing AOO 4.0 release notes page on the wiki: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/AOO+4.0+Release+Notes I didn't add any content to that section. Basically (my understanding, don't hesitate to correct me): - For a [minor] issue in the file structure, all the current extensions with a toolbar MUST be updated - Updated and new extensions won't be compatible with former versions of AOO/OOo For all the details, refer to the link given above. Consequences: - Users upgrading to 4.x will lose such extensions (certainly with no warning since very few users read the release notes) - Both versions of each extension will have to be maintained as long as pre-4.0 versions are still in use So, are all the committers aware of this change and do they all agree about such a major change? My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no doubt in the user's mind, even if they do not read the release notes, that the extensions are gone. Then, when extensions are installed in the fresh AOO 4.0 system, users will need to install extensions that are compatible with AOO 4.0. I know that there is a topic on the API list (link given above) but I'm not sure it has the same audience as the dev list (number of subscribers I mean). Since this is a major change, I think it deserves a discussion on the dev mailing list. I know that if this change is implemented, the forums will be quickly flooded with users disappointed to have lost their extensions. So this is the topic I will point to in order to explain the dev community rationale about that. Again, my impression is that users will lose their extensions and need to reinstall them, even if we do not make any API changes. I know that code change is sometimes required. But can we take into account the end-user impact here? There may be some transition solution with a deprecated method that would be still valid for some time (let's say until version 5.x for example) with a massive communication to all the accounts having uploaded an extension? I think a clean break with the past profile helps us avoid the current generation of crash issues. We get to start clean rather than deal with the many upgrade paths: AOO 3.4.1 - AOO 4.0 AOO 3.4.9 - AOO 4.0 OOo 3.3.0 - AOO 4.0 OOo 3.2.1 - AOO 4.0 OOo 3.2.0 - AOO 4.0 etc. So the reduction in complexity should improve the user experience, once they reinstall their extensions. The other impact, as you noted, is on the extension author. I think for that we need clear communications, with plenty of time for them to adapt, plus early availability of AOO 4.0 code for them to test with. Unlike end users, developers know that API's change, and even if they did not change they should know that they need to retest with major new versions. So we should have their attention with the 4.0 release. I don't have an opinion on changing this for 4.x versus 5.x. -Rob Hagar
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
Le 11/02/2013 22:46, Rob Weir a écrit : My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no doubt in the user's mind, even if they do not read the release notes, that the extensions are gone. [...] Again, my impression is that users will lose their extensions and need to reinstall them, even if we do not make any API changes. [...] I think a clean break with the past profile helps us avoid the current generation of crash issues. We get to start clean rather than deal with the many upgrade paths: No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've done that too. But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling extensions and losing them completely (waiting that someone dare update them). Hagar
Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti pesce...@apache.org wrote: On 11/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've done that too. But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling extensions and losing them completely (waiting that someone dare update them). The real issue is here indeed. Reinstalling won't be perceived as a big problem. But the fact that reinstalling the same extension won't work will be a problem. Most of the extensions hosted on extensions.openoffice.org won't be updated, and extensions.openoffice.org does not support filtering by version (and anyway the information would be missing in current releases). The top five extensions at http://extensions.openoffice.org/en/most_popular total 1 million downloads per year, which could give some backing to the nightmare support scenario Hagar envisions. So you are assuming that the authors of the top extensions will not update their extensions? Is that a reasonable assumption? Why wouldn't they update? I agree that if we accepted that assumption then this looks like a bad change. But I do wonder about the validity of that assumption. -Rob Ariel posted to the API list saying that the two reasonable options in his opinion are either to keep or revert his entire change (Hagar, please note that Ariel asked not to start a discussion here and now, and mentioned he cannot be responsive at the moment; anyway...). But if there is a way, even using redundant code, to still support the old and new toolbar handling this would be very useful to end-users. From the FOSDEM talks I understood there could the possibility to still support both mechanisms (and of course, warn users when the deprecated one is used). Regards, Andrea.