Ariel Constenla-Haile schrieb:
Hi Ariel,
I am the maintainer of the OpenOffice.org toolkit
I knew that, one of the reasons for the title of this message was to
call your attention ;-) , as I succeeded with the "Getting the System
Colors (missing feature in the AWT module?)" message...[your answer at
http://api.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMsg?listName=dev&msgNo=18117
and my issue 81355: "API to get the system's colors" ]
and I know that the IDL files need a brush up to be up to date.
Luckily Berend created many issues about the IDL files which I want to
fix in the near future.
Uou! Thanks again Berend! :-)
You should use "com.sun.star.awt.MenuBar" and
"com.sun.star.awt.PopupMenu". The other service names are outdated and
only supported for compatibility reasons. Could please write an issue
and set me ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) as the owner.
OK, that's what my mail was intended for ;-)
By the way, of what type? RFE, FEATURE...?
The missing IDL files for com.sun.star.awt.MenuBar and PopupMenu are
clearly defects. The project should be "API" and owner "cd".
The example on the SDK works OK, because the fixed text implementation
has no context menu, but how do I intercept the context menu of
UnoControls? Is it possible at all? (I mean, using API, not hacking
OOo's C++ code).
No, that's no possible. Currently the toolkit uno controls are just
small wrappers around the VCL based controls. If you need something
like this you have to write a "request for enhancement".
once again: OK ;-) !!!
By the way: which is the project I should write to? the API or the
Framework? I ask first, because the last time [81355], although I CC'ed
to you, I received a not very polite answer from someone telling me to
better implement my own code :-( , so before annoying anyone, it's
better to know where to write.
You're right that the answer was not very polite. Just to be sure that I
get the request for enhancement, please set "cd" as the owner. Otherwise
the default owner of the API project will be notified and he doesn't
know what we discussed. API is the correct project, but change the owner
to "cd".
We want to extend the current toolkit API,
I am completely aware of that:
[QUOTE from http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/new_leads_cd.html]
" What would you like next to do with the project?
I just started a new series of tutorials to better describe the features
of the framework project. I hope that more people can use all available
framework features to create more powerful extensions..."
And for this spirit, I thank you!
but need feedback from extension developers. Only you can give us
information what you really miss. Therefore please write request for
enhancements and let us know your problems with the API.
You can find the result of a gap analysis I did last year regarding
the toolkit API here:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Framework/Article/Gap_Analysis_Tookit_API
I think I read that the first time you answered me!
Concerning this, I would like to quote your words on the 3rd part
"Missing functions, classes, controls and information in the awt toolkit
API" (the emphasis is mine)
"The community was asked to participate in the gap analysis and provide
their point of view where things should improve and what's missing in
the current awt toolkit API. Although the *feedback* of the community
was *not* *overwhelming* some interesting information could be extracted."
If my memory isn't playing with me, I think that for the time you did
this analysis there was no (dev-)extensions mailing list, am I wrong?
Yes, you're right. The dev-extensions mailing list was created several
months later.
If I'm wright, maybe a message posted there with an interesting title
(like "AWToolkit Improvement for Extensions Developers" or the like)
could now help you more to know the needs of extensions developers, than
if I write a mail in this mailing list telling what I dream of
(concerning the AWToolkit, of course).
Would be a nice idea, but the features and enhancements I have to work
on are clear for OOo 3.0. Therefore I don't want to start a new "request
for ideas" if it's clear that many new ideas cannot be implemented in
the near future.
(By the way, if could dream without any reasonable limit, I would dream
of a Java-AWT+Swing-like API; but I've got my feet on the ground, and I
agree with your point: "It must be carefully discussed how far the awt
toolkit API should be extended. It should be clear that it cannot be a
full featured wrapper for the C++ based VCL.")
I can understand your dream, but resources are tight and we have to find
the best compromise between time and feature set.
Bye, and once again, thanks!!!
Ariel.
PS: I have been playing with the new AWT tree module, and got some
questions, which is the right place to post them, here or in the
Framework mailing list?
You should ask your question regarding the AWT tree control here on the
api dev list. Christian Lippka, author of the awt tree control, reads
this list and can answer your questions.
Regards,
Carsten
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
