On 10/11/12 17:46, Michael Meeks wrote: > Hi Alex, > > On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 10:51 +0100, Alex Thurgood wrote: >> I see your points and concerns. Couldn't we have, as a potential >> alternative, a hack (easy or not, I wouldn't know) to replace the >> current implementations with something more manageable (if indeed that >> is possible, and however that might be defined) ? > > I'd love to see those pieces split out to be extensions that you can > download & use if you want to (personally). That's presumably quite some > chunk of work though.
that would be possible, but there are some open questions as to how to best accomplish it: the problem is that non-URE jars are used, which is not allowed for extensions. but that seems fixable: the used jars seem to be the external "bsh" / "rhino" and internal "ScriptingFramework", the latter containing common code for BeanShell/JavaScript/Java script providers. the ScriptProviderForPython is already an extension so there is some prior art on how to do it. also, until commit a72a7dc500ffd57662e8b9be61e4676266861c33 the java ones were extensions too. the following options come to mind: 1) add ScriptFramework.jar to the URE this would require maintaining binary compatibility; i have no idea if that is appropriate here 2) have 3 extensions and duplicate the ScriptFramework jar in each of them; would that actually work if you install more than one of them? 3) have 1 extension that contains ScriptFramework plus all 3 script providers option 3 appears most appealing to me. _______________________________________________ LibreOffice mailing list LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice
