least a nodding recognition.
>
> --
> Jim
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Quigley
> To: "Rick C. Hodgin"
> Cc: Chris Sherlock , Ashod Nakashian
> , libreoffice
> Sent: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:27
> Subject: Re: Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice
; -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Quigley
> To: "Rick C. Hodgin"
> Cc: Chris Sherlock , Ashod Nakashian <
> ashnak...@gmail.com>, libreoffice
> Sent: Tue, 12 Jan 2016 20:27
> Subject: Re: Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice
>
> Hi Rick,
>
> ActiveX i
for it.
If it's an unused feature, I'd suggest that's why than for other reasons.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
Original Message
From: Chris Sherlock
Sent: Mon, 11/01/2016 08:21 PM
To: Ashod Nakashian
CC: libreoffice ; Bryan Quigley
Subject: Re: Remove ActiveX
Bryan,
OK but someone must confirm that removing activeX has no influence on
this API functions and the LO codebase can use the ATL stuff without
activeX and the "CreateObject" will still been functioning.
greetez
Fernand
On 13/01/2016 5:19, Bryan Quigley wrote:
My understanding is that ATL
herlock
> Sent: Mon, 11/01/2016 08:21 PM
> To: Ashod Nakashian
> CC: libreoffice ; Bryan Quigley
> Subject: Re: Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice
>
> That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>
> Out of interest, just how “integrated” is this with the code? If someone
> wanted
M
> To: Ashod Nakashian
> CC: libreoffice ; Bryan Quigley
> Subject: Re: Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice
>
> That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
>
> Out of interest, just how “integrated” is this with the code? If someone
> wanted to create an external project on GitHub or some
OK, now that "reveal codes" was brought up, this thread definitely has
jumped the shark.
--tml
___
LibreOffice mailing list
LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
On 12/01/2016 15:36, timofonic timofonic wrote:
I would love:
- Writer: The best of a "text processor". Become a powerful ide. Able
to edit using markup languages. Able to use DVCS like Git.
You've got me on my hobbyhorse :-) Both emacs and (el)vi(m)(s), iirc,
allow multiple edit windows on
ication, though it appears to be fully integrated. It is a
>> powerful tool. And as I say, I have not used LibreOffice for integration
>> because I could not find good documentation on how to do it, whereas there
>> are many online resources on how to use Microsoft Office integra
ny online resources on how to use Microsoft Office integration. If
> the documentation were better, Windows people would use it as it is highly
> desirable.
>
> Best regards,
> Rick C. Hodgin
>
>
> On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:52 AM, James E Lang wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > -Original Me
etter, Windows people would use it as it is highly
desirable.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 9:52 AM, James E Lang wrote:
>
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Bryan Quigley
> To: libreoffice
> Sent: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:41
> Subject: Re: Remove Act
-Original Message-
From: Bryan Quigley
To: libreoffice
Sent: Sun, 10 Jan 2016 15:41
Subject: Re: Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice
-->8=
>My position on ActiveX is to leave it (lest we break applications in the
>wild,) and to *announce its deprecation* with
On 11/01/2016 20:32, Bryan Quigley wrote:
I propose we add it to the 5.1 release notes (and 5.2 notes too) as:
Intent to Remove ActiveX support in the 5.2 release. If this change
negatively affects your Windows application please email the
LibreOffice development list with your use case and pl
Why are you removing ActiveX from LibreOffice? Excel supports it, and it is desirable for integration with Windows apps like C#, Visual Basic, Visual FoxPro. It allows those other apps to integrate the app directly into their app.I have tried to use it previously, but could not find documentation
That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
Out of interest, just how “integrated” is this with the code? If someone wanted
to create an external project on GitHub or some place like this, would it be
feasible?
I guess I’m trying to understand how much of core it touches… to reimplement an
ActiveX c
On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 2:32 PM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
>
>
> Anywhere else we should post this?
>
>
Ideally the note would show up unintrusively upon loading/using the ActiveX
itself. Unfortunately we can't show a message box or some such UI, in case
the ActiveX is used non-interactively (in which
I propose we add it to the 5.1 release notes (and 5.2 notes too) as:
Intent to Remove ActiveX support in the 5.2 release. If this change
negatively affects your Windows application please email the
LibreOffice development list with your use case and plan for moving
off of ActiveX. We specificall
> On 11 Jan 2016, at 10:41 AM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
>
> To look at this issue from another POV.. If someone showed up today
> with an issue with a LO ActiveX control embedded in their application
> that didn't work - what would our response be? It's an outdated
> technology that we're not inves
I missed a couple of posts being off list, and some from Gerrit comments.
>(1)And the cost of maintaining it is currently near zero, no?
I don't think so, it's likely more of a maintenance cost than NPAPI
was. I'm not an expert but it makes our Windows builds more complex.
>(2)As Michael accurate
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 8:44 AM, Chris Sherlock
wrote:
> What is our position on ActiveX?
>
As Michael accurately noted, ActiveX is for more than browser embedding.
It's a generic framework for cross-language modules, which IE simply
capitalized on. It is used quite heavily even in .Net applicat
So I believe that we haven’t come to any firm conclusion on this issue.
There is a patch in gerrit currently, I’m a bit concerned it might be pushed
before this is concretely decided.
What is our position on ActiveX?
Michael raises a pretty good point, and there are others who have said they
On 30.12.2015 21:02, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Recently it was decided to remove the rest of NPAPI support [1] which
> got me thinking about the other Windows specific plugin tech -
> ActiveX.
>
> It seems ActiveX is very much no longer recommended by Microsoft and
> it seems to not wo
Does this mean it’s no longer crashing?
Chris
> On 1 Jan 2016, at 3:31 PM, Chris Sherlock wrote:
>
> P.S. given that LO is crashing due to the ActiveX control borking, that bug
> still needs troubleshooting.
>
> Mark, can you provide us with a backtrace when soffice dies, then add it to
> t
;-( .. Oh, I provide the wrong information again.
I mean the file didn't open if LibreOffice is installed with both Explorer
Extension and Active X disabled.
2016-01-01 14:53 GMT+08:00 Mark Hung :
> Hi all,
>
> I lost my memory and messed tdf#90386 with another thing.
> It didn't seem to work p
Hi all,
I lost my memory and messed tdf#90386 with another thing.
It didn't seem to work properly since IE8 / LO4.2.2, though I did try to
fix it.
2016-01-01 12:17 GMT+08:00 Chris Sherlock :
> Unless I'm much mistaken, the ActiveX control does almost exactly the same
> thing that the browser p
P.S. given that LO is crashing due to the ActiveX control borking, that bug
still needs troubleshooting.
Mark, can you provide us with a backtrace when soffice dies, then add it to
the TDF bug report?
Chris
On Fri, Jan 1, 2016 at 3:17 PM, Chris Sherlock
wrote:
> Unless I'm much mistaken, the A
Unless I'm much mistaken, the ActiveX control does almost exactly the same
thing that the browser plugin did for Netscape.
Given that in Edge Microsoft will not be supporting ActiveX plugins any
more, isn't the justification for removing the ActiveX control the same as
for remove the NSAPI plugin?
Mark Hung wrote:
> A valid use case is to read the uploaded documents on SharePoint server in
> intranet.
> Eventually it obsoletes, but I prefer to consider this when facing some
> directly related event.
> ( i.e EOL of Windows7, new toolchain ceasing ActiveX support, or security
> issue which la
> In a word: mantainence.
>
> ActiveX is a failed idea by Microsoft, and in fact there is always a
> burden in maintaining things that aren't seen as at all useful or even
> desirable.
>
> We removed plugins for a similar reason.
>
I'm all for removing it. The less weird features, the better.
--t
In a word: mantainence.
ActiveX is a failed idea by Microsoft, and in fact there is always a burden
in maintaining things that aren't seen as at all useful or even desirable.
We removed plugins for a similar reason.
Chris
On Thursday, December 31, 2015, Mark Hung wrote:
> tdf#90386 is about I
tdf#90386 is about IE8 only, IE9 and above do not have the issue. In the
case I reported, IE8 is still used in order to compatible with legacy
systems. It is my point that, why bother to remove it if not harmful or
infeasible?
2015-12-31 10:19 GMT+08:00 Bryan Quigley :
> >I've reported tdf#90386
>I've reported tdf#90386 last year, which was about IE8 didn't render
>embedded LibreOffice properly.
From that bug, does that mean it doesn't really work properly anyway
since LO 4.4/IE8?
>Eventually it obsoletes, but I prefer to consider this when facing some
>directly related event.
>( i.e EOL
I’m all for this.
Chris
> On 31 Dec 2015, at 7:02 AM, Bryan Quigley wrote:
>
> Hi there,
>
> Recently it was decided to remove the rest of NPAPI support [1] which
> got me thinking about the other Windows specific plugin tech -
> ActiveX.
>
> It seems ActiveX is very much no longer recommend
Hi,
I've reported tdf#90386 last year, which was about IE8 didn't render
embedded LibreOffice properly.
A valid use case is to read the uploaded documents on SharePoint server in
intranet.
Eventually it obsoletes, but I prefer to consider this when facing some
directly related event.
( i.e EOL of
Hi there,
Recently it was decided to remove the rest of NPAPI support [1] which
got me thinking about the other Windows specific plugin tech -
ActiveX.
It seems ActiveX is very much no longer recommended by Microsoft and
it seems to not work by default for IE10/11 on Windows 7 and up. Any
object
35 matches
Mail list logo
