Hi, * >Hi > >> I like that idea. A working prototype can styll be of value. And if >> we're lucky, after the add-on is mature, maybe /then/ the author will >> decide that the JCA is not such a bad idea. >> >> I mean, if I have a working add-on, it works well, people love it, and I >> have the promise that it will go into the OOo tree... I would be much >> more willing to sign the JCA to see it happen. > >That is exactly how DicOOo has come into OOo >First it was a standalone macro, lost of my personal website >Then it has been reworked (and is still be worked on) and be integrated > >It is the normal way for me > >On the other hand, i want to point that addons are standalone entities >They have their on life cycle and are desiminated all over the web
I find that disseminaion to be a bit of a problem, and would much rather have a central repository for add ons. I think it would enrich OOo. Accordingly, Erwin and I (and anyone else who wants to help) are working to collect information on such add ons, plug ins, etc. The issue that is being used for this is <http://qa.openoffice.org/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=33986>, but the object of that, a page listing add ons, is just a first step. My notion is to make the end user experience as easy as possible, and I doubt if a page would do that. But one has to start somewhere. :-) Overall, I envision that many companies will (and some already do) offer add ons not just for OOo but also for its derivatives. What I and many others do not want is a bloated OOo that ships with elective elements. There is not real reason for that, at least not from OOo's point of view. If companies want to do that, that's their business :-) Cheers, Louis --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
