Re: [dev] Bounty for performance improvements
Thorsten Behrens wrote: Jens-Heiner Rechtien [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Well, but any reference counter increase/decrease still needs to be atomic as long as they are not thread local? How can we replace them with plain integer operations? Hi Heiner, well, when shared only within _one_ UTF2 thread-unsafe environment, you don't need to explicitely make them atomic. But see below... It is also the question whether calls to acquire and release across thread-safe/-unsafe boundaries should be guarded (like normal UNO method calls) or direct. For acquire, the combination of atomic acquire (how it is typically implemented by C++ UNO objects) and direct call would probably be fastest. For release, the problem is that many C++ UNO object implementations do nontrivial work in their destructors (which often is a bad thing, bad that is another story), so that release should better be guarded. -Stephan [...] - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Bounty for performance improvements
Jens-Heiner Rechtien wrote: Hi Michael, With UTF2 you mean Uno Threading Framework 2? I can see how it helps the performance if we reduce mutex locking (especially Solar-Mutex, of course) but naively I would assume that reference counter as programming concept are mostly independent from that effort? Does UTF2 significantly reduce the amount of reference counter usage? How? Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't we save a lot of Acquire/ReleaseSolarMutex calls that currently happen in each and every API call? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Built and now what ?
On 07/11/2006, at 10:30 AM, Jim Watson wrote: Enno, I think the best thing would be to download the released installation that matches your solver version and use that one to drop in your changes. Enno, i dont any other ideas. I am now downloading the 2.0.4 solver for linux/intel, and will reply again when I have tried it, jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Integration of the OpenOffice.org page into the Firefox browser
Hi Kay, I have created an extension for the Firefox browser. It adds a new main menu with a list of OpenOffice.org related URLs and it adds a search context menu to the IssuesZilla and OO.o search engine. It is an easy way to access the OpenOffice.org web page Please find more on the Wiki page, there you could download the extension : http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Firefox_OpenOffice.org_extension Looks very interesting! Just tried to install the downloaded xpi-file on Windows XP, but Firefox reports a problem with the hash (assumes an error in downloading). Did repeat the download and attempt to install to no avail. Regards, ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] changing the OOo-Configuration via API has no effect during runtime
Niklas Nebel wrote: Mathias Bauer wrote: Are you sure that it doesn't affect even new documents you create later? Then it would be a bug (Writer having a cached value that doesn't react on changes of the configuration) and you should create an issue. One may call it a bug, but it's not surprising. When the old config items were changed to read their values from the configuration, proper notification wasn't added in most places. It was something to be added later, and we all know how later never comes. Absolutely. I know how these bugs have been introduced but OTOH I think we should fix them. We already added a lot of notifications or even removed the famous ConfigItem classes and IMHO we should continue to do so. That's the reason why I want to have issues when somebody stumbles over missing notifications. At least for the project's I feel responsible for. :-) Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Integration of the OpenOffice.org page into the Firefox browser
On 07/11/2006, at 8:40 PM, Rony G. Flatscher wrote: Hi Kay, I have created an extension for the Firefox browser. It adds a new main menu with a list of OpenOffice.org related URLs and it adds a search context menu to the IssuesZilla and OO.o search engine. It is an easy way to access the OpenOffice.org web page Please find more on the Wiki page, there you could download the extension : http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ Firefox_OpenOffice.org_extension Looks very interesting! Just tried to install the downloaded xpi-file on Windows XP, but Firefox reports a problem with the hash (assumes an error in downloading). Did repeat the download and attempt to install to no avail. Regards, Hi, I just tried here on iMac (intel) and it worked fine, jim - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Integration of the OpenOffice.org page into the Firefox browser
Hi Jim, I have created an extension for the Firefox browser. It adds a new main menu with a list of OpenOffice.org related URLs and it adds a search context menu to the IssuesZilla and OO.o search engine. It is an easy way to access the OpenOffice.org web page Please find more on the Wiki page, there you could download the extension : http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Firefox_OpenOffice.org_extension Looks very interesting! Just tried to install the downloaded xpi-file on Windows XP, but Firefox reports a problem with the hash (assumes an error in downloading). Did repeat the download and attempt to install to no avail. I just tried here on iMac (intel) and it worked fine, thank you for this feedback/hint! It made me think that something was wrong with my running instance of Firefox. So I shut it down (but had to kill the process eventually) and restarted it and tried to install the Firefox extension, which lo and behold has worked for me now as well ! Regards, ---rony - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] instsetoo_native build failure
My build instsetoo_native fails in packimages when looking for *.png files in $SRCROOT/default_images/res/commandimagelist as no default_images subdirectory or link exists. The environment variable RSCDEFIMG is set in settings.mk to 'default_images'. Should this be some other value ? What did I miss ? Appreciate any help. Enno - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Integration of the OpenOffice.org page into the Firefox browser
On 11/3/06, Kay Koll [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I am planning to publish the extension on the Mozilla Extension page in the next couple of weeks. Nice one. I use simple IssueZilla search engine for Firefox for fast IZ access. http://ooo.izycg.cz/firefox/ooo-issues/ooo-issues.(src|png) -- Robert Vojta - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Specifications - summary suggestions ...
Hi Michael, Michael Meeks wrote: + specifications are critical for (at a minimum): + file formats + complex / unfamiliar behaviours + behaviour changes affecting other's work (e.g. the automated gui testing is extremely dependent to the basics of OOo) * (Perhaps) Controversial + The primary consumer of a finished spec. is QA Incorrect: + The primary consumers of a finished spec are testers, developers who will make changes in future (and are may be not the same who made the implementation), developers who need the implementation to write their implementations on the solution and documentation people to document the changes + QA tests + we need to be able to execute these way more quickly: ~2 hours, to get yes/no answers on individual CWS' faster. On it's way, You can directly contact me for an update. + Wiki + using a wiki for specs allows easier spec editing and construction and maintenance Don't think so, but there is now one. Try to design UI in it and you will love .odt :-) Cu, Jogi -- === Sun Microsystems GmbH Joerg Sievers 20097 Hamburg Quality Assurance Engineer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] An attempt of a summary: specification process possibilities
Hi Mathias, Mathias Bauer wrote: Possibly we can establish a process that allows for more asynchronous work or creates the documentation in a QA style (QA or documentation ask for the information they need instead of forcing the developers to provide everything upfront). As some of us have desribed in a presentation [1] (slide 12+ is the i-Team work described - How to write a specification) held on OOoCon [2] the i-Team should work together on the specification because they are the stakeholder for the document. If there are information included in a specification which is not needed by - developer (also developer who will work afterwards with the implementation!) - tester - documentation people then it makes no sense in the document. I hear lightweight specification document from many people but mostly I thnk you mean lightweight specification PROCESS because in the doucment there should be no information which is not helpful for DEV, QA, DOC! The specification process [3] and issue handling [4] only has been written down and not being changed. If there are intersted people in doing it - [EMAIL PROTECTED] will be your right place. We want to do it and it should match the needs of DEV, QA, DOC - surely! :-) Have fun, Jogi [1] http://marketing.openoffice.org/ooocon2006/presentations/wednesday_c12.odp [2] http://marketing.openoffice.org/ooocon2006/schedule/community_abstracts.html#c12 [3] http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Category:Specification [4] http://qa.openoffice.org/issue_handling/workflowcharts/taskhandling_workflow_feature_specification.html -- === Sun Microsystems GmbH Joerg Sievers 20097 Hamburg Quality Assurance Engineer - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[dev] is it possible to switch off auto-numbering via api for already opened documents
Hi, I just recently asked in another thread whether it is possible to set the option ShowHiddenChar for already opened textdocuments. The result was that setting this property via api is not possible at the moment (therefore I submitted a bugreport). Now I would like to know If I can switch off the autonumbering (Tools-AutoCorrect-Options/apply autonumbering) for an already opened document via api. Writing the configuration directly has no effect on already opened documents. best regards, Christoph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Specification Process Possibilities ... - unit testing
Hi Michael, Michael Meeks schrieb: I hack on a module I like to try and find these tests, I poke in 'workben' and I see very frequently stale/un-buildable/un-runable code, then I poke in qa/ and eg. in configmgr/qa/unoapi I see a makefile.mk I 'dmake' that, something happens and it barfs: Exception in thread main java.lang.NoClassDefFoundError: org/openoffice/Runner dmake: Error code 1, while making 'ALLTAR' it appears broken out of the box. I would -Love- to have a good, standardised unit testing framework in place to add tests to, and let us re-factor code more aggressively with confidence. However - I just don't see anything here. the Runner is part of the qadevOOo project. If you build this project and deliver it, the OOoRunner.jar should be available in the environment. In projects which support an UNO-API there exists a qa/unoapi folder. It contains only scripts. The test are hosted in the qadevOOo project. This project delivers the OOoRunner.jar. So it is needed to build this project also. Hope that helps, Christoph - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] Specifications - summary suggestions ...
Niklas Nebel wrote: Kohei Yoshida wrote: On 11/3/06, Mathias Bauer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Let's put it that way: it should be possible to integrate something even if the original goal laid out in the spec wasn't reached but the result is good enough. Good enough means that we could live with it even if nothing was changed until the release date. This is something you always must take into account, especially in case of community development. ... We never should accept unfinished UI work in a way that parts of the necessary functionality *willingly* don't work to a degree that users will expect in a professional application. This can't be described by a fixed percentage but I assume that it can be judged with common sense. If developer, QA and other participants agree that it's good enough, then let's take it. I like the way you put it. This is essentially what I was trying to say in my post. Looks like we're on the same page here. But note how the original goal laid out in the spec wasn't reached implies that there was a spec to begin with. ... but of course the same applies to cases where the original goal was described *sufficiently* in an issue or a concept in a wiki page. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] An attempt of a summary: specification process possibilities
Joerg Sievers wrote: Hi Mathias, Mathias Bauer wrote: Possibly we can establish a process that allows for more asynchronous work or creates the documentation in a QA style (QA or documentation ask for the information they need instead of forcing the developers to provide everything upfront). As some of us have desribed in a presentation [1] (slide 12+ is the i-Team work described - How to write a specification) held on OOoCon [2] the i-Team should work together on the specification because they are the stakeholder for the document. As mentioned in this thread several times it is not possible to expect that contributions from community developers will have an iTeam. We should be able to integrate work done by community developers to scratch their own itch. In this case the work is done in the way problem seen - problem fixed - please integrate. I think we should follow this perception by avoiding the iTeam term where it isn't mandatory. I understood Michaels idea (that I - und now you - have quoted) in the way that he thinks that in this case where the development is done already when a community developers asks for QA we should think about ways to allow a less formal and QA oriented communication between developer and QA or documentation. I think this is a valid request that deserves some thoughts. Please let me repeat the restriction I made in my summary: this should apply to new developers only. If developers would like to continue contributing we should try to get them used to our a little(!) bit more formal working style over time. Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [dev] An attempt of a summary: specification process possibilities
Michael Meeks wrote: Nope, seems a good summary; one of the ideas I came up with was of splitting the work-flow aspects [ step1: create iTeam, step2: design, step 3: review, step 4: implement ] etc. from the other pieces that are necessary for QA / docs / i18n etc. ie. providing separate guidelines for how teams can function, and develop software vs. what information / approvals are necessary to get changes included in the product. I don't see our discussion related to the way something is implemented, so this splitting IMHO is an implicit one. So my idea was (and still is): step1 - idea: mandatory ;-) step2 - create iTeam: optional at this point in time as we can't expect it for all community work step3 - design/review/implementation cycles: indispensable :-) step4 - create iTeam if not done in step2: possible to be done by project lead; now mandatory as needed for the next steps step5 - finalize documentation aka spec to the necessary degree as negotiated inside the iTeam; possibly with help from iTeam or Project Lead step6 - QA, maybe fixing bugs, documentation: how could we do without? ;-) Does that make sense? Ciao, Mathias -- Mathias Bauer - OpenOffice.org Application Framework Project Lead Please reply to the list only, [EMAIL PROTECTED] is a spam sink. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
