On 2/20/13 8:14 PM, Roberto Galoppini wrote: > On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischm...@gmail.com>wrote: > >> 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 Good ideas, and we could maybe consider to add an "Outdated" notice, 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 >> >> >> >
