Juergen Schmidt - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg wrote:
Hi,
i got more or less no feedback on the dev list and take it as an
agreement. If here has anybody some concerns please raise your hand.
Otherwise i will move forward to integrate the SDK as an optional
package in the office.
Juergen
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject:
[dev] Proposal: SDK as optional package of the office installation
From:
Juergen Schmidt - Sun Germany - ham02 - Hamburg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date:
Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:33:23 +0200
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Hi,
i have investigated a little bit into the SDK to make it
working/running with the new 3 layer office -> OO.org 3.0.
The SDK as it is doesn't work with the new structure and i would like
to propose to make the SDK as an *optional* package of the normal
office installation because it would simplify the whole SDK usage and
configuration a lot. It's no really new idea and i have it mind for a
long time. But now it seems to be the perfect time because the old
structure doesn't work anymore and have to be changed anyway.
The only disadvantage so far is that the download becomes a little bit
bigger. For the linux distros it shouldn't be a problem because they
do it anyway on their own and for example on Ubuntu the SDK packages
install already in a sub directory under the office installation.
Some more reasons why i think it would be a good move
1. it would ease the use and the configuration of the SDK a lot
2. everything in place if you want to program with or for OO.org
3. the *big* DevGuide (html and PDF) are removed anyway since 2.4 ->
the DevGuide is in the wiki online available
4. we can include the API IDL reference in the office help system.
It's currently completely missing. Macro programmer have only a
StarBasic runtime help but no API reference.
5. examples becomes independent. In the long term i would prefer
NetBeans, Eclipse and MS Studio example projects as separate downloads
or in cvs and documented in the wiki. Example would be easier to use,
easier to maintain.
6. the support of different IDE's would be also simplified
What do you think? I would like to make this change for OO.org 3.0 and
the visible impact is small. More or less only the GUI installer are
effected and will offer tow additional optional installation options.
Everything else should be minor issues.
The impact for localization is small. Only two short names and
descriptions for the new module sin the GUI installer. There is no
need to translate the SDK completely.
Who has decided that there is no need to translate SDK? I think that the
N-L teams should decide whether it's worth while to have it localized or
not.
Just my 2 cents.
Rafaella
At least not for 3.0. From my point of view it doesn't make sense to
translate the IDL reference. We can think about the other SDK html
files but as mentioned before there is no need for 3.0.
Please share your opinions as well as your complains for this proposal
as soon as possible here on the list.
Juergen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Rafaella Braconi
Program Manager
Sun Microsystems GmbH
Nagelsweg 55
D-20097 Hamburg
Phone: +49-40-23646-781 (x66781)
Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sitz der Gesellschaft: Sun Microsystems GmbH, Sonnenallee 1, D-85551
Kirchheim-Heimstetten
Amtsgericht Muenchen: HRB 161028
Geschaeftsfuehrer: Thomas Schroeder, Wolfgang Engels, Dr. Roland Boemer
Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrates: Martin Haering
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
