2008/9/30 Mathias Bauer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Thorsten Behrens wrote: > >> 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. ;) > > We don't have "the" users. My fear is that a not so small and not so > unimportant part of our users (the corporate users and those from the > public sector) fall into the categorie of "whatever you do, don't spoil > my document layout!". We see that everytime we accidently (or > intentionally ;-)) broke something for them, e.g. if we fixed a bug of > an old OOo version and now documents look different. Maybe that this is > a very Writer-specific problem, but at the end this is the application I > was talking about.
I fail to see how modularization could break the layout of imported documents. Why anything has to be rewritten from scratch? Is it because of bad code design? If classes/functions from one namespace do not refer to another namespace directly or indirectly, why should it be so hard to package that namespace as a standalone module? If there is a dependency, say on some UI class, which was probably created accidentally, then why removing it should imply a rewrite of the whole thing? I have to agree with Thornsten that protecting existing user base at the expense of potential new users and new paradigms is not a good roadmap for OOo. I would say it's a sure way towards a failure. As for lack of resources, modularization is necessary precisely because current OOo team cannot possibly handle all use-cases for OOo components. So let's allow others use those components outside of OOo and not bother the core team. > > So my ideas of what we can improve in the forseeable future don't are > about "how can we split up or exchange the core". But there's enough to > do elsewhere that can move us forward. And nothing that we can do will > make the hurdle for a core model exchange higher than it is alraedy. > > Ciao, > 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] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
