Moin Thorsten, Thorsten Behrens wrote:
> Hi Mathias, > > you wrote: >> Right. It's clear that the re-usability of OOo code in other projects >> isn't in our focus. I hope it's understandable that our main interest is >> the success of OOo as an end user application. It may be even a bit >> short-sighted, I don't know. But that's as it is. >> > You correctly described the status quo, thanks for that and also for > the very nice write-up of the general problem. I'm nevertheless > wholeheartedly convinced that this focus is utterly wrong, and was > therefore tempted to post a little rant on my blog > (http://blog.thebehrens.net/2008/09/29/ooo-non-vision/). I think that your blog is a little bit unfair and so I posted a comment. But now let's become constructive. >> If you were asking me what my personal preference would be if I didn't >> need to care for resources: >> >> - a new core based on ODFDOM (ported to C++ or equipped with a UNO >> wrapper around the Java code), a well designed, modular layout code with >> perhaps only 95% layout compatibilty and a completely separated, >> exchangeable UI or >> >> - keeping the current, tuned and non-modular code >> > I haven't touched Writer code with a ten-feet pole (well, okay, > maybe I've fixed a handfull of graphics bugs), but - ain't there an > in-between, a possibility to refactor? That's what Armin did with > the drawing layer, and I would consider that successful. Of course. And refactoring in Writer is always on our list. I gave an outlook on some possible improvements in my talk in Barcelona and I will present more in the near future. We already refactored our core-layout interface. Unfortunately we are now stuck exactly in the drawing layer Or more precicely: our problems are grouped objects and form controls that don't support the idea of a 1:n relation between core and layout properly. But we haven't given up. Would be nice to get some support of people in the know (perhaps you?). But we already have done a huge amount of refactoring in the last years (most of them also have been mentioned in my talk in Barcelona) in the framework. Refactoring the framework was the inevitable first step before we can modularize the code of the "applications", as in former times the framework functionality has been smeared over a lot of libraries and classes that e.g. Writer directly linked to. Nowadays the framework nearly completely is made up of exchangeable and extendable UNO services. > >> I wouldn't need a long time to chose. But in the real word I *have* to >> take care for resources and even more: I have to take care for what >> users want from us. So if someone has a tool to destroy the Gordian >> knot: I would like to buy one. :-) >> > Hm. That's a funny thing with the users. They tell you they want > 100% layout compatibility, and then they move on to Mac & use > Pages, because it's 'good enough' and so much nicer. There are smart > people out there, opining that when disruptive changes happen (and > they do, with web-based offerings, mobile phones etc.), you better > not listen to your established user base - I recommend (re-)reading > Clayton Christensen. ;) I would be glad to see my apprehension unjustified. I don't want my statement be understood as a "I never would do that because the users won't like it", more like a "before I will do that I must have the impression that it can be accepted by the users". So while this statement isn't a description of the status quo only, it also isn't a vision. It's just "loud thinking" about how I could implement my vision. As promised elsewhere in this thread I will present them (or the more general part of it) soon. Regards, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer OpenOffice.org Engineering at Sun: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS Please don't reply to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
