Re: AW: [dba-dev] writing a new SDBC(X) driver, similar to the MySQL driver
Hi Michael, > It's been a while since I wrote to the mailing list last time, because I > was on vacation. You may remember that we were working on a driver. We > are finished with the driver so far and would like to integrate it into > the core code base. Probably we need to do some small changes to code to > integrate it in base's connection dialog and some more stuff. What is > the current OOo built which should be used as foundation for this? I > will submit an issue with type enhancement or feature with code patches > if this is what you need for integration into the core code base. DEV300 m31 is the most recent milestone (m32 is the first SVN-based milestone, not sure when it will finally be released). If you want, we can create a CWS based on this milestone, and commit your changes (or you can do yourself, if you want, after we granted you permissions to do so). Any adjustments which are possibly needed can then happen in this CWS, and we can fine-tune it without disturbing other development. Such a dedicated CWS would be easier (than a patch in IZ) in case you expect more changes to the first patch version, but has more overhead in case your first patch is perfect :) Your decision. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dba-dev] Radio Button Group Names in ODF
Hi Jonathan, > So we should continue to pursue this as part of the ODF 3.0 or Interop > committees so that we can "break" things (if necessary) for consistency > in a controlled fashion. > > For the time being, though, I'll be implementing the alternate XML > namespace approach. Just talked with Michael Brauer, the chair of the ODF TC. According to him, the current status of the proposal [1] is not that it has been rejected. Instead, the proposal was presented, and founded with Accessibility arguments, which were not convincing to some TC members. (In fact, the proposal at the moment still claims that the attribute will help accessibility, since no possibility for grouping exists in current ODF - both is plain wrong.) However, there has neither been a vote on the proposal (so it is not rejected), nor has Florian continued to present / argue for it. Since you and Florian are listed as the proposal owners, I suggest you should re-submit it (or however it is properly called when you continue discussing it, instead of just not talking about it anymore in the TC calls). There's too much uncertainty about whether or not the TC would really accept the proposal - you mentioned multiple times you do not know yourself if/why it was rejected -, that I think you should continue arguing for it in the official channel - in the TC -, until we can be sure that it is accepted or rejected. One point which I think can help (and which I in fact think is a good reason *not* to go for the interop-namespace until the proposal has been officially rejected by TC, if that really ever happens): Microsoft is a member of the TC, too. That is, assuming that they have an interest in ODF (why else should they be a TC member, right?), they should be able and willing to support the proposal - finally, its deeper purpose is exactly to mirror a feature which is present in MS' applications for quite a while. So, either this feature does make sense (which I think it does), then MS should be able to help arguing the reason. Or it doesn't make sense, but is some kind of legacy feature - in this case (and this would be the outcome I would not like) one could argue that OOo does also not need it. So, in short: I think before going for any non-ODF-compliant extensions to the file format, I think you guys should drive the proposal, until the point where it either has been accepted, or rejected. I know that this committee work is more difficult than just hacking, and indeed it's nothing I begrudge you - but I think it's the better way. Ciao Frank [1] http://wiki.oasis-open.org/office/Grouping_for_Radio_Elements -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dba-dev] Radio Button Group Names in ODF
Hi Jonathan, > Indeed, this problem hadn't occurred to me until Tuesday of this week - > any existing ODF parsers aren't going to know about a group-name > attribute, and thus will be relying on the name attribute for grouping > semantics. > > Adding any form of group-name attribute cannot work in this context, not > without extending the existing parsers to support the new attribute. I don't think so. Finally, we introduce a new feature here (an additional means to control radio button grouping), which is (to be) reflected in ODF 1.x, and ODF processors which a) do not know about ODF 1.x and/or b) do not have this feature will ignore this particular attribute, and behave differently from what is actually specified in 1.x. But - that's nothing new. That happens all the time in all parts of OOo. So, that alone is not at all an argument against a new attribute which reflects this new property. More in a separate reply. Ciao Frank -- - Frank Schönheit, Software Engineer [EMAIL PROTECTED] - - Sun Microsystems http://www.sun.com/staroffice - - OpenOffice.org Base http://dba.openoffice.org - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: AW: [dba-dev] writing a new SDBC(X) driver, similar to the MySQL driver
Hello Frank and Ocke, It's been a while since I wrote to the mailing list last time, because I was on vacation. You may remember that we were working on a driver. We are finished with the driver so far and would like to integrate it into the core code base. Probably we need to do some small changes to code to integrate it in base's connection dialog and some more stuff. What is the current OOo built which should be used as foundation for this? I will submit an issue with type enhancement or feature with code patches if this is what you need for integration into the core code base. > Submit an issue in IssueZilla, attach your changes. They'll be > reviewed, possibly you'll be asked to do some changes, and then we'll > take care of integrating it. Best regards, Micha - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
