Yegor Jbanov wrote: > 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? I wasn't talking about modularization in general, I was talking about a new Writer core that *I* would like to have (hey, I'm allowed to have dreams and wishes also! :-)).
> 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? Of course. As I already wrote, separating UI and core in Writer is nothing I would see as impossible. That would improve the architecture, but it wouldn't give usable modules as the internal core interfaces are not stable. Thus my sidestep to the ODFDOM core. Seems that got mixed up in your thoughts a bit. I hope I made it clear now. > 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. I think you are jumping to conclusions. I never wrote that we shouldn't look for different concepts, I only stated that I see a huge problem with an important part of our user base for that I don't have a solution ATM. But that doesn't exclude modularization in general, just this particular part of it. To avoid further misinterpretation: ---- Do I support better modularization? ------------------------------- Yes, wholeheartedly, not only by talking about it but also by actively working on it, not only in future but also since several years. ---- Do I like the idea to share code with other projects? ------------ Yes. And better modularization is a precondition for that. But sharing code with others is not the only reason for modularization, so we shouldn't mix these two things. ---- Do I want to support that actively? ------------------------------ Yes. First by working on better modularization and second by supporting people that try to remove obstacles. ---- Do I want to do that at any price? ------------------------------- No. I still consider working on the OOo code to make it better as more important than trying to(!) share code with others. And I can't believe that anybody else interested in the project could think differently. OOo is not a stone pit, it's a building. It may not have the best possible architecture, but as long as it has such a huge success as now we shouldn't erode it completely before we have at least the blueprint for its successor. What can be done in reasonable limits should be done. But nothing that entails a huge risk to damage the project considerably. What is reasonable and what not surely is open and may even change in the future. And we shouldn't forget that talk is cheap. If someone wants to get something changed: help doing the change. 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]
