You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.

Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> on 2013/03/25 23:58:06 UTC

questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started looking
into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into
Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ
(edited a LOT just recently):

http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/FAQ_%28Base%29

which seems to indicate (hmmm)--

 "Is Base a database?

Not technically. Base serves several roles within the *Office suite
(AOO<http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html>/
LibO <http://www.libreoffice.org/>), but Base *itself* is strictly an
interface (or front-end<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa141493%28office.10%29.aspx>)
designed to connect to various types of databases, by means of
driver<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Database/Driver_Specifics>files."


...and then

"Base offers to create an *all-in-one 'embedded database' file* similar to
MS Access. In this configuration, the front-end components (queries, forms,
reports and macros) are packaged together with the database files produced
by HSQLDB, all within a single Base (.odb) file. Unfortunately, this
single-file concept has proven unreliable with Base, leading to rampant
data corruption<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=162653#p162653>.
So it's best to avoid the 'Create new database' wizard in Base thereby
avoiding 'embedded database' files (perhaps with the exception of
developing prototypes or distributing
examples<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=100>).
Fortunately, Base offers an alternative wizard which produces a robust '
split-database<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa141493%28office.10%29.aspx>'
configuration in which the database (tables and user-data) is stored in a
separate file (or files). Steps for creating a new 'split-database'
utilizing the built-in HSQL database-engine with Base are outlined below."


I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
front-end?

So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
using the "front-end" capabilities?



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

RE: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.

I share Regina's concern for the use in teaching and for casual database purposes.  I'm not so sure how much SQL is a determining factor.  

I also sympathize with not wanting a required Java dependency, especially for a built-in component of the suite. 

However, the cooperation offered by the HSQLDB team might be an important factor:
<http://hsqldb.org/web/openoffice.html>.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 27, 2013 17:10
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

[ ... ]

Please see several threads on the java7 and hsqldb issues. In my particular
test build, using hsqldb 2.2.9 for a build with Oracle java 7 does not
produce acceptable results either.

Some further information:

http://markmail.org/message/kswggpb4cz3gmscg

many of these issues came to light with the common use of java7 by users.
If you do a search with "java7" many more issues will arise. Or look in BZ.

As others have pointed out, we really have no dedicated developers in the
DB area, and we can't expect users to be stuck with an outdated java just
to run AOO. So, that's the story.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:07 PM, Rony G. Flatscher
<Ro...@wu.ac.at>wrote:

>
> On 27.03.2013 21:57, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >> Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based
> >> DBMS in the Foundation.  It's actively maintained, and, while it's
> >> written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is
> >> therefore probably launchable.
> >>
> >> Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo,
> >> if Base can be structured to use it?
> >>
> >> Don
> >>
> > Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
> >
> > http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html
> >
> > This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
> >
> > http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm
> >
> > Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
> Yes, it is a good thing, actually a very good thing!
> :)
>
> OTOH, removing the embedded database feature from AOO is really, really a
> *bad thing* for many
> reasons...
>
> ---rony
>
> P.S.: Not sure why hsqldb (<http://hsqldb.org/>) does not suffice anymore
> for an embedded database?
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
Please see several threads on the java7 and hsqldb issues. In my particular
test build, using hsqldb 2.2.9 for a build with Oracle java 7 does not
produce acceptable results either.

Some further information:

http://markmail.org/message/kswggpb4cz3gmscg

many of these issues came to light with the common use of java7 by users.
If you do a search with "java7" many more issues will arise. Or look in BZ.

As others have pointed out, we really have no dedicated developers in the
DB area, and we can't expect users to be stuck with an outdated java just
to run AOO. So, that's the story.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by "Rony G. Flatscher" <Ro...@wu.ac.at>.

On 27.03.2013 21:57, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based
>> DBMS in the Foundation.  It's actively maintained, and, while it's
>> written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is
>> therefore probably launchable.
>>
>> Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo,
>> if Base can be structured to use it?
>>
>> Don
>>
> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html
>
> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm
>
> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
Yes, it is a good thing, actually a very good thing!
:)

OTOH, removing the embedded database feature from AOO is really, really a *bad thing* for many
reasons...

---rony

P.S.: Not sure why hsqldb (<http://hsqldb.org/>) does not suffice anymore for an embedded database?


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 11:36 AM, Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de> wrote:

> Hello
>
> Am 29.03.2013 19:07, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> > On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Reizinger Zoltán <zreizinger@hdsnet.hu
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
> >>
> >>  On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
> >>>> andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>  On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>  Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/****papers/DerbyTut/embedded_****intro.html<
> http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html>
> >>>>>> <http://db.apache.
> **org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/**embedded_intro.html<
> http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/****kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<
> http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>
> >>>>>> <http://**markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<
> http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>  PRO:
> >>>>> * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can
> >>>>> write a
> >>>>> document in Write, but you must first install an external application
> >>>>> that
> >>>>> Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also,
> most
> >>>>> external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want
> to
> >>>>> simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do
> that
> >>>>> easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect
> you
> >>>>> to
> >>>>> install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  So, it boils
> >>>>> down
> >>>>> to an ability to create a small single file DB.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> CON:
> >>>>> * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who
> >>>>> does
> >>>>> not know better may try to create a very large DB and have
> performance
> >>>>> issues.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.
>
>
> >>>>>  This has been a very good discussion so far.
> >>>>
> >>>> I would again like to emphasize two things about our current
> >>>> situation/implementation:
> >>>>
> >>>> * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance
> >>>> from
> >>>> Base.
> >>>>
> >>>> (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true
> >>>> for
> >>>> Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the
> >>>> connectivity portions of AOO).
> >>>>
> >>>> * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development
> >>>> maintenance
> >>>> for the embedded DB
> >>>>
> >>>> In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community.
> >>>>
> >>>>  I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I
> have
> >>> most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an
> issue
> >>> which I addressed here
> >>>
> >>> http://sourceforge.net/**projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/**
> >>> 73674/topic/6842122<
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122>
> >>>
> >>> I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues
> that
> >>> the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem
> to be
> >>> within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having
> made
> >>> too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the
> issue, I
> >>> am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure.
> For
> >>> example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column
> but I
> >>> am unable to locate the UI code for it.
> >>>
> >>
> > Michael -- Great to hear from you again!
> >
> >>
> >>>  The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but
> >> the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time.
> >> It contains lot of code change.
> >> All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.**
> >> org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ <
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/>
> >> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.
> >>
> >> I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no
> >> coding knowledge.
> >>
> >> First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate
> >> work.
> >> Zoltan
>
> I can/will also do QA for Base
> Kind regards
>
> Mechtilde
>

Good. So, any builds should also include junit option for this purpose I
assume


> >
> >
> > and, hi  Zoltan -- thanks for this info. I'm not sure how many of us knew
> > about this.
>
>
> >>  As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning
> to
> >>> ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back
> into
> >>> shape. Any takers?
>
>
> > Count me in! I too am doing some additional investigative work. I will be
> > back with the procedures I took in a few days. I installed hsqldb 2.2.9
> > locally and went from there. I need to go over my build logs again to see
> > if I missed something. I may rebuild with debug options etc to help me
> out.
> >
>
>
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de>.

Hello

Am 29.03.2013 19:07, schrieb Kay Schenk:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>wrote:
> 
>> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
>>
>>  On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
>>>> andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://db.apache.org/derby/****papers/DerbyTut/embedded_****intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html>
>>>>>> <http://db.apache.**org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/**embedded_intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/****kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>
>>>>>> <http://**markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  PRO:
>>>>> * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can
>>>>> write a
>>>>> document in Write, but you must first install an external application
>>>>> that
>>>>> Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most
>>>>> external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to
>>>>> simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that
>>>>> easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you
>>>>> to
>>>>> install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  So, it boils
>>>>> down
>>>>> to an ability to create a small single file DB.
>>>>>
>>>>> CON:
>>>>> * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who
>>>>> does
>>>>> not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance
>>>>> issues.
>>>>>
>>>>> If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.


>>>>>  This has been a very good discussion so far.
>>>>
>>>> I would again like to emphasize two things about our current
>>>> situation/implementation:
>>>>
>>>> * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance
>>>> from
>>>> Base.
>>>>
>>>> (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true
>>>> for
>>>> Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the
>>>> connectivity portions of AOO).
>>>>
>>>> * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development
>>>> maintenance
>>>> for the embedded DB
>>>>
>>>> In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community.
>>>>
>>>>  I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have
>>> most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an issue
>>> which I addressed here
>>>
>>> http://sourceforge.net/**projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/**
>>> 73674/topic/6842122<http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122>
>>>
>>> I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues that
>>> the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem to be
>>> within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having made
>>> too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the issue, I
>>> am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure. For
>>> example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column but I
>>> am unable to locate the UI code for it.
>>>
>>
> Michael -- Great to hear from you again!
> 
>>
>>>  The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but
>> the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time.
>> It contains lot of code change.
>> All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.**
>> org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ <http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/>
>> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.
>>
>> I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no
>> coding knowledge.
>>
>> First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate
>> work.
>> Zoltan

I can/will also do QA for Base
Kind regards

Mechtilde
> 
> 
> and, hi  Zoltan -- thanks for this info. I'm not sure how many of us knew
> about this.


>>  As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning to
>>> ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back into
>>> shape. Any takers?


> Count me in! I too am doing some additional investigative work. I will be
> back with the procedures I took in a few days. I installed hsqldb 2.2.9
> locally and went from there. I need to go over my build logs again to see
> if I missed something. I may rebuild with debug options etc to help me out.
>

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Fri, Mar 29, 2013 at 10:08 AM, Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>wrote:

> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
>
>  On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
>>> andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>  On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://db.apache.org/derby/****papers/DerbyTut/embedded_****intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html>
>>>>> <http://db.apache.**org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/**embedded_intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://markmail.org/message/****kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>
>>>>> <http://**markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>>>>>
>>>>>  PRO:
>>>> * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can
>>>> write a
>>>> document in Write, but you must first install an external application
>>>> that
>>>> Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most
>>>> external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to
>>>> simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that
>>>> easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you
>>>> to
>>>> install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  So, it boils
>>>> down
>>>> to an ability to create a small single file DB.
>>>>
>>>> CON:
>>>> * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who
>>>> does
>>>> not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance
>>>> issues.
>>>>
>>>> If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Andrew Pitonyak
>>>> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/****AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt>
>>>> <http://www.**pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
>>>> >
>>>> Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------****----------------------------**--**---------
>>>>
>>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**a**pache.org<http://apache.org>
>>>> <de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>>> >
>>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  This has been a very good discussion so far.
>>>
>>> I would again like to emphasize two things about our current
>>> situation/implementation:
>>>
>>> * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance
>>> from
>>> Base.
>>>
>>> (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true
>>> for
>>> Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the
>>> connectivity portions of AOO).
>>>
>>> * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development
>>> maintenance
>>> for the embedded DB
>>>
>>> In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community.
>>>
>>>  I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have
>> most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an issue
>> which I addressed here
>>
>> http://sourceforge.net/**projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/**
>> 73674/topic/6842122<http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122>
>>
>> I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues that
>> the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues seem to be
>> within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them but having made
>> too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time locating the issue, I
>> am still trying to get use to the build system and the code structure. For
>> example, there is an issue with setting the default date on a column but I
>> am unable to locate the UI code for it.
>>
>
Michael -- Great to hear from you again!

>
>>  The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but
> the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time.
> It contains lot of code change.
> All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: http://hg.services.openoffice.**
> org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/ <http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/>
> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.
>
> I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no
> coding knowledge.
>
> First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate
> work.
> Zoltan


and, hi  Zoltan -- thanks for this info. I'm not sure how many of us knew
about this.


>
>  As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning to
>> ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back into
>> shape. Any takers?
>>
>
Count me in! I too am doing some additional investigative work. I will be
back with the procedures I took in a few days. I installed hsqldb 2.2.9
locally and went from there. I need to go over my build logs again to see
if I missed something. I may rebuild with debug options etc to help me out.



>> Michael
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.

Hi Michael,

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 05:26:04PM -0400, Michael Lam wrote:
> As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the
> patches from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't
> see any relevant changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the
> configure script. I ran into that while working on another issue.
> One thing I am looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that
> are code that is checking for the version of hsql but I have not
> been able to locate it.

Did you take a look at the driver code? This should be the place to
start:
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/xref/aoo-trunk/main/connectivity/source/inc/hsqldb/
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/xref/aoo-trunk/main/connectivity/source/drivers/hsqldb/

Build with debug symbols, and set break points on the main entry point,
the class implementing the component
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/xref/aoo-trunk/main/connectivity/source/inc/hsqldb/HDriver.hxx
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/xref/aoo-trunk/main/connectivity/source/drivers/hsqldb/HDriver.cxx

ODriverDelegator::connect seems to read the version from the properties
file in <odb file>/database/properties:
http://opengrok.adfinis-sygroup.org/source/xref/aoo-trunk/main/connectivity/source/drivers/hsqldb/HDriver.cxx#261

You need to understand some UNO concepts (the basics: what is a UNO
component; and the Base related one: how is a driver implemented
http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Database/Driver_Service). 

Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

[ top posting ]

We have gone off topic a bit from the initial subject of this thread.  But
please feel free to add comments on the original subject if you feel
inclined.

And, for those who have volunteered to continue helping with HSQL, thank
you.



On Sun, Mar 31, 2013 at 10:28 AM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Michael Lam <mn...@verizon.net>wrote:
>
>> On 03/30/2013 04:30 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>>
>>> On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
>>>
>>>> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
>>>>
>>>>> I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have
>>>>> most of the configure and build portion ready
>>>>>
>>>>
>>> Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from
>>> developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone
>>> lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in the
>>> meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see
>>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121754<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754>
>>>
>>>  All code was stored in cws hsqldb19:
>>>> http://hg.services.openoffice.**org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/<http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/>
>>>> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that
>>> legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed
>>> off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly so
>>> that we can get it done.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>   Andrea.
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**
>>> ---------
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>  I started on the integration of 2.2.9 because the project took care of
>> the handling different jdk and also the patches being applied were
>> integrated into the codebase. Overall I saw it as a better move to have
>> those issues taken care of and gain whatever advances that was made between
>> 2.2.9 and 1.8.x.
>>
>> As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the patches
>> from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't see any relevant
>> changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the configure script. I ran
>> into that while working on another issue.
>
>
> yes...I asked about this yesterday on one of the issues -- there is a
> lovely patch! -- not yet submitted. Somewhat under discussion in:
>
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121837
>
> Anyone wanting to deal with any hslqdb 2.2.9 will run into this problem.
>
>  One thing I am looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that are
>> code that is checking for the version of hsql but I have not been able to
>> locate it.
>>
>> Any pointers or knowledge of the Base code would be most helpful since
>> just poking around is quite time consuming. I am learning quite a bit about
>> the code so it is not all bad.
>>
>> Michael
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Sat, Mar 30, 2013 at 2:26 PM, Michael Lam <mn...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On 03/30/2013 04:30 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>
>> On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
>>
>>> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
>>>
>>>> I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have
>>>> most of the configure and build portion ready
>>>>
>>>
>> Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from
>> developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone
>> lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in the
>> meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see
>> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=121754<https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754>
>>
>>  All code was stored in cws hsqldb19:
>>> http://hg.services.openoffice.**org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/<http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/>
>>> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.
>>>
>>
>> If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that
>> legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed
>> off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly so
>> that we can get it done.
>>
>> Regards,
>>   Andrea.
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>>  I started on the integration of 2.2.9 because the project took care of
> the handling different jdk and also the patches being applied were
> integrated into the codebase. Overall I saw it as a better move to have
> those issues taken care of and gain whatever advances that was made between
> 2.2.9 and 1.8.x.
>
> As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the patches
> from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't see any relevant
> changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the configure script. I ran
> into that while working on another issue.


yes...I asked about this yesterday on one of the issues -- there is a
lovely patch! -- not yet submitted. Somewhat under discussion in:

https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121837

Anyone wanting to deal with any hslqdb 2.2.9 will run into this problem.

 One thing I am looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that are
> code that is checking for the version of hsql but I have not been able to
> locate it.
>
> Any pointers or knowledge of the Base code would be most helpful since
> just poking around is quite time consuming. I am learning quite a bit about
> the code so it is not all bad.
>
> Michael
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Michael Lam <mn...@verizon.net>.

On 03/30/2013 04:30 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
>> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
>>> I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have
>>> most of the configure and build portion ready
>
> Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from 
> developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone 
> lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in 
> the meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see
> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754
>
>> All code was stored in cws hsqldb19:
>> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/
>> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.
>
> If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that 
> legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed 
> off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly 
> so that we can get it done.
>
> Regards,
>   Andrea.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
I started on the integration of 2.2.9 because the project took care of 
the handling different jdk and also the patches being applied were 
integrated into the codebase. Overall I saw it as a better move to have 
those issues taken care of and gain whatever advances that was made 
between 2.2.9 and 1.8.x.

As fir the cws hsqldb19 branch, i did check through it and the patches 
from there are currently being used. Beside that I didn't see any 
relevant changes, for example the check for 1.8.x in the configure 
script. I ran into that while working on another issue. One thing I am 
looking into at the moment is recovery in Base, that are code that is 
checking for the version of hsql but I have not been able to locate it.

Any pointers or knowledge of the Base code would be most helpful since 
just poking around is quite time consuming. I am learning quite a bit 
about the code so it is not all bad.

Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@apache.org>.

On 29/03/2013 Reizinger Zoltán wrote:
> 2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
>> I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have
>> most of the configure and build portion ready

Thank you, Michael! While in general Base sees less attention from 
developers, I suspect that if you have specific questions then someone 
lurking on this list will come out. A lower-hanging fruit could be, in 
the meantime, to get HSQLDB 1.8.x build correctly with Java 7, see
https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=121754

> All code was stored in cws hsqldb19:
> http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/
> The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.

If it can be useful to the project we can investigate it. I think that 
legal issues are among the few confidential topics better discussed 
off-list... but if anyone knows more, feel free to contact me directly 
so that we can get it done.

Regards,
   Andrea.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Reizinger Zoltán <zr...@hdsnet.hu>.

2013.03.29. 17:25 keltezéssel, Michael Lam írta:
> On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
>> andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>>>>
>>>> http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>>>>
>>>> http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm> 
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>>>>
>>> PRO:
>>> * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can 
>>> write a
>>> document in Write, but you must first install an external 
>>> application that
>>> Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, 
>>> most
>>> external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to
>>> simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that
>>> easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect 
>>> you to
>>> install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  So, it boils 
>>> down
>>> to an ability to create a small single file DB.
>>>
>>> CON:
>>> * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone 
>>> who does
>>> not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance
>>> issues.
>>>
>>> If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Andrew Pitonyak
>>> My Macro Document: 
>>> http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
>>> Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**--------- 
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: 
>>> dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>> This has been a very good discussion so far.
>>
>> I would again like to emphasize two things about our current
>> situation/implementation:
>>
>> * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable 
>> performance from
>> Base.
>>
>> (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds 
>> true for
>> Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the
>> connectivity portions of AOO).
>>
>> * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development 
>> maintenance
>> for the embedded DB
>>
>> In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community.
>>
> I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have 
> most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an 
> issue which I addressed here
>
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122
>
> I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues 
> that the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues 
> seem to be within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them 
> but having made too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time 
> locating the issue, I am still trying to get use to the build system 
> and the code structure. For example, there is an issue with setting 
> the default date on a column but I am unable to locate the UI code for 
> it.
>
The all hsqldb 2.0 intagration work finished in Oracle era, OOo3.4 but 
the final integration postponed to 3.5 version or later time.
It contains lot of code change.
All code was stored in cws hsqldb19: 
http://hg.services.openoffice.org/hg/cws/hsqldb19/
The code transfer to ASF is not clear to me.

I did the user side QA work, if I have time will help you. I have no 
coding knowledge.

First need to clarify the cws hsqldb19 code usage, to prevent duplicate 
work.
Zoltan

> As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning 
> to ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it 
> back into shape. Any takers?
>
> Michael
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Michael Lam <mn...@verizon.net>.

On 03/28/2013 01:24 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
> andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:
>
>> On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>
>>> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>>>
>>> http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html>
>>>
>>> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>>>
>>> http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>
>>>
>>> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>>>
>> PRO:
>> * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a
>> document in Write, but you must first install an external application that
>> Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most
>> external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to
>> simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that
>> easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to
>> install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  So, it boils down
>> to an ability to create a small single file DB.
>>
>> CON:
>> * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does
>> not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance
>> issues.
>>
>> If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Andrew Pitonyak
>> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
>> Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
> This has been a very good discussion so far.
>
> I would again like to emphasize two things about our current
> situation/implementation:
>
> * the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from
> Base.
>
> (More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for
> Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the
> connectivity portions of AOO).
>
> * the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance
> for the embedded DB
>
> In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community.
>
I have been working on updating the HSQL to the latest version. I have 
most of the configure and build portion ready but I did run into an 
issue which I addressed here

http://sourceforge.net/projects/hsqldb/forums/forum/73674/topic/6842122

I have tested Base with version 2.2.9 and it does address the issues 
that the current patches are created for. Overall, most of the issues 
seem to be within the AOO code. I have tried to look into some of them 
but having made too much progress. Personally I am having a hard time 
locating the issue, I am still trying to get use to the build system and 
the code structure. For example, there is an issue with setting the 
default date on a column but I am unable to locate the UI code for it.

As a volunteer, I am going to concentrate on Base. I have been meaning 
to ask on the list if others would like to work together to get it back 
into shape. Any takers?

Michael



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 7:56 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <
andrew@pitonyak.org> wrote:

>
> On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
>
>> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>>
>> http://db.apache.org/derby/**papers/DerbyTut/embedded_**intro.html<http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html>
>>
>> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/**kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm<http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm>
>>
>> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>>
> PRO:
> * Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write a
> document in Write, but you must first install an external application that
> Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, most
> external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I want to
> simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't do that
> easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then expect you to
> install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  So, it boils down
> to an ability to create a small single file DB.
>
> CON:
> * Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who does
> not know better may try to create a very large DB and have performance
> issues.
>
> If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.
>
>
>
> --
> Andrew Pitonyak
> My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/**AndrewMacro.odt<http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt>
> Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php
>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>
This has been a very good discussion so far.

I would again like to emphasize two things about our current
situation/implementation:

* the requirement of Java 6 by end users to get acceptable performance from
Base.

(More testing of builds will be needed to determine if this holds true for
Java 7 and HSQL 2.2.9. Perhaps additional changes are needed to the
connectivity portions of AOO).

* the current and perhaps future issues in terms of development maintenance
for the embedded DB

In any case, we need to keep in mind this is a volunteer community.

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.

On 03/27/2013 04:57 PM, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html
>
> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm
>
> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
PRO:
* Very convenient for small things. Imagine if I said that you can write 
a document in Write, but you must first install an external application 
that Write will connect to. This is rather daunting for new users. Also, 
most external systems I expect probably use multiple files, so, if I 
want to simply create something small and send it to you, well, I can't 
do that easily unless I zip up a directory, send it to you, and then 
expect you to install the same DB that I used and then make it work.  
So, it boils down to an ability to create a small single file DB.

CON:
* Our current Embedded DB works poorly with large DB, and someone who 
does not know better may try to create a very large DB and have 
performance issues.

If it is not reliable, then it is probably better to not exist.


-- 
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Fred Ollinger <fo...@gmail.com>.

What was the original problem that we are trying to solve?

>From what I can gather we have no idea how many people use Base.
There's speculation that it's small, but unless it's measured, what
does this mean? Also, there are some people who think that Base works
for them and that it's critical for them to have.

Perhaps things are good as is regarding the db?

Fred

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based
>> DBMS in the Foundation.  It's actively maintained, and, while it's
>> written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is
>> therefore probably launchable.
>>
>> Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo,
>> if Base can be structured to use it?
>>
>> Don
>>
>
> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html
>
> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm
>
> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>
>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based
> DBMS in the Foundation.  It's actively maintained, and, while it's
> written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is
> therefore probably launchable.
>
> Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo,
> if Base can be structured to use it?
>
> Don
>

Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:

http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html

This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:

http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm

Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...


> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by "Keith N. McKenna" <ke...@comcast.net>.

Kay Schenk wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 11:01 AM, Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based
>> DBMS in the Foundation.  It's actively maintained, and, while it's
>> written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is
>> therefore probably launchable.
>>
>> Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo,
>> if Base can be structured to use it?
>>
>> Don
>>
>
> Well Derby does seem to be "embed-able ". See:
>
> http://db.apache.org/derby/papers/DerbyTut/embedded_intro.html
>
> This has been suggested before, as early as 2006. See:
>
> http://markmail.org/message/kp5n2d5yzhprgpjm
>
> Still, is any embedded DB  a good thing? Pros and cons...
>
>
Kay;

The answer depends on one's point of view Kay. For me having the 
embedded db was one of the reasons I chose to go with OpenOffice when I 
was researching replacements for Microsoft Works. I wanted to learn more 
about relational databases and it saved me from adding yet one more 
application to my system.

The advantage I see of having it is that it is available for those times 
that it is needed. For the secretary of a club or small association that 
needs to keep track of members and send mailings, or the individual who 
wants to track his cd collection or his private library.

Then there is the support issue of what do we do for those people that 
have used it and then do not have it anymore. This is not only a support 
issue, but could become a marketing nightmare as well. I can see the 
blog posts and more now about how AOO has taken away functionality. 
Whether it is fud or not, the negative publicity will have an effect on 
people.

Regards
Keith

>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Donald Whytock <dw...@gmail.com>.

Just tossing this out...It seems Apache Derby is the one SQL-based
DBMS in the Foundation.  It's actively maintained, and, while it's
written in Java, it still works in a client/server model and is
therefore probably launchable.

Since it's in the family and all, perhaps it can be bundled with OOo,
if Base can be structured to use it?

Don

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 12:18 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton <dennis.hamilton@acm.org
> wrote:

> Good point.
>
> So even if there were a replacement, there would need to be legacy interop.
>

yes...somehow


>
> That's probably an interesting challenge to avoid with Base.
>
> So, we're back to the previously unanswered problem with regard to support
> of HSQLDB and rotting bits (and version-specific Java dependencies) in Base.
>

Much investigation would need to be done with respect to the "interface" vs
data store.


>
>  - Dennis
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:damjan@apache.org]
> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 00:17
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
>
> We can't really change the embedded DB, only add a new implementation -
> compatibility with previous ODB files needs to be kept for a long long
> time.
>
> Damjan
>
> On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <orcmid@apache.org
> >wrote:
>
> > The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting.
> >
> > I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be
> > reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base.  It essentially depends on how
> > important SQL is.  And of course, it would be just to furnish a default
> > built-in DBMS.
> >
> >  - Dennis
> >
> > "Small. Fast. Reliable.  Choose any three."  I love the brass!
> > <http://sqlite.org/>
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05
> > To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed
> of
> > course.
> >
> >  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems
> >
> > [ ... ]
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

RE: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <de...@acm.org>.

Good point.  

So even if there were a replacement, there would need to be legacy interop.  

That's probably an interesting challenge to avoid with Base.

So, we're back to the previously unanswered problem with regard to support of HSQLDB and rotting bits (and version-specific Java dependencies) in Base.

 - Dennis

-----Original Message-----
From: Damjan Jovanovic [mailto:damjan@apache.org] 
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 00:17
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

We can't really change the embedded DB, only add a new implementation -
compatibility with previous ODB files needs to be kept for a long long time.

Damjan

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:

> The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting.
>
> I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be
> reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base.  It essentially depends on how
> important SQL is.  And of course, it would be just to furnish a default
> built-in DBMS.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> "Small. Fast. Reliable.  Choose any three."  I love the brass!
> <http://sqlite.org/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of
> course.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.

We can't really change the embedded DB, only add a new implementation -
compatibility with previous ODB files needs to be kept for a long long time.

Damjan

On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 1:33 AM, Dennis E. Hamilton <or...@apache.org>wrote:

> The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting.
>
> I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be
> reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base.  It essentially depends on how
> important SQL is.  And of course, it would be just to furnish a default
> built-in DBMS.
>
>  - Dennis
>
> "Small. Fast. Reliable.  Choose any three."  I love the brass!
> <http://sqlite.org/>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com]
> Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05
> To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
> Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of
> course.
>
>  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems
>
> [ ... ]
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

RE: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by "Dennis E. Hamilton" <or...@apache.org>.

The link to OpenOffice.org Base is interesting.

I wonder if the decision about SQLite (or a variant) should be reconsidered for a re-engineered AOO Base.  It essentially depends on how important SQL is.  And of course, it would be just to furnish a default built-in DBMS.

 - Dennis

"Small. Fast. Reliable.  Choose any three."  I love the brass! 
<http://sqlite.org/>

-----Original Message-----
From: Kay Schenk [mailto:kay.schenk@gmail.com] 
Sent: Thursday, April 04, 2013 14:05
To: dev@openoffice.apache.org
Subject: Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

[ ... ]


You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of
course.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems

[ ... ]


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 10:48 AM, Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de> wrote:

> Hello there,
>
> while the base module of AOO is not used all that often, it's the only
> free database software.


You may want to take a look at this page from Wikipedia. Not guaranteed of
course.

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Free_database_management_systems

but I'm not sure of your context here.

If, for example, you want one from Microsoft you need to buy the very much
> overpriced MS Office Professional. Well, I've used Base already and I find
> it handy for my personal needs. I'm into registering all my books with it.
> I'd say the DB should be kept.
>
> By the way, Digitale Schultasche is Digital school bag, not school bar.
> While Germany is somewhat more liberal than, e. g., the US as it comes to
> alcohol they still don't open bars in schools... :-D
>
> Max
>
>
> Am 27.03.2013 18:30, schrieb Regina Henschel:
>
>  Hi Kay,
>>
>> Kay Schenk schrieb:
>>
>>> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
>>>
>> [..]
>>
>>
>>> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
>>> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means,
>>> for
>>> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added
>>> responsibility
>>> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were strictly  a
>>> front-end?
>>>
>>> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
>>> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed
>>> to
>>> using the "front-end" capabilities?
>>>
>>>
>> I do not like the idea to drop the embedded DB. It is a nice feature,
>> when you teach pupils about database. It cannot be done with Calc or dBase
>> tables, because they have no relationships between tables, and teaching
>> foreign keys is essential. Using the embedded database has the advantage,
>> that it is portable. Pupils can have all their work on a USB stick and use
>> it at home and as school as well, without the need to install something or
>> to be online. This concept is known as "digitale Schultasche" (digital
>> schoolbar) here in Germany.
>>
>> Kind regards
>> Regina
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>
> ------------------------------**------------------------------**---------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.**apache.org<de...@openoffice.apache.org>
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Max Merbald <ma...@gmx.de>.

Hello there,

while the base module of AOO is not used all that often, it's the only 
free database software. If, for example, you want one from Microsoft you 
need to buy the very much overpriced MS Office Professional. Well, I've 
used Base already and I find it handy for my personal needs. I'm into 
registering all my books with it. I'd say the DB should be kept.

By the way, Digitale Schultasche is Digital school bag, not school bar. 
While Germany is somewhat more liberal than, e. g., the US as it comes 
to alcohol they still don't open bars in schools... :-D

Max


Am 27.03.2013 18:30, schrieb Regina Henschel:
> Hi Kay,
>
> Kay Schenk schrieb:
>> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
> [..]
>
>>
>> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving 
>> this a
>> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really 
>> means, for
>> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added 
>> responsibility
>> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were strictly  a
>> front-end?
>>
>> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
>> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as 
>> opposed to
>> using the "front-end" capabilities?
>>
>
> I do not like the idea to drop the embedded DB. It is a nice feature, 
> when you teach pupils about database. It cannot be done with Calc or 
> dBase tables, because they have no relationships between tables, and 
> teaching foreign keys is essential. Using the embedded database has 
> the advantage, that it is portable. Pupils can have all their work on 
> a USB stick and use it at home and as school as well, without the need 
> to install something or to be online. This concept is known as 
> "digitale Schultasche" (digital schoolbar) here in Germany.
>
> Kind regards
> Regina
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Regina Henschel <rb...@t-online.de>.

Hi Kay,

Kay Schenk schrieb:
> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
[..]

>
> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
> front-end?
>
> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
> using the "front-end" capabilities?
>

I do not like the idea to drop the embedded DB. It is a nice feature, 
when you teach pupils about database. It cannot be done with Calc or 
dBase tables, because they have no relationships between tables, and 
teaching foreign keys is essential. Using the embedded database has the 
advantage, that it is portable. Pupils can have all their work on a USB 
stick and use it at home and as school as well, without the need to 
install something or to be online. This concept is known as "digitale 
Schultasche" (digital schoolbar) here in Germany.

Kind regards
Regina


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.

On 27 March 2013 17:12, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Guy Waterval <waterval.guy@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Andrew,
> > Hi all,
> >
> > 2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>
> >
> > >
> > > I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for
> small
> > > data that is relational.  For larger data sets, the embedded DB is
> > > insufficient.
> > >
> >
> > Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a
> > little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums,
> schools,
> > restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can
> transform
> > the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size
> is
> > 40?
> >
> > A+
> > --
> > gw
> >
>
> My opinion is that users and AOO would be better served if users chose and
> installed their own small DB (one that would support some typical
> connectivity -- ODBC, JDBC) instead of AOO supplying one with the product.
> Many such good small scale DBs exist. It just seems to me that no matter
> what we have/choose now as an embedded DB, and problems that may ensue with
> it, and therefore might require future replacement, is a continual
> problematic cycle we really don't need.
>
+1, but maybe we should recommend 2 one for really small scale and one for
larger db. That way we do not have the maintenance and we do not leave the
users standing in the rain.


>
> At this point, given that we don't really know what folks re doing with
> Base. I think it would be better to do a transitional move -- take out the
> embedded DB and therefore "Create new DB" option would go away.  Let the
> front-end stuff alone.
>
+1

>
> Naturally, we would have to investigate some export mechanisms for users,
> etc to preserve the data they may already have in ODB.
>
e.g. through calc, which whould be relatively easy.

rgds
Jan  I.

>
>
>
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 11:57 PM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Andrew,
> Hi all,
>
> 2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>
>
> >
> > I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small
> > data that is relational.  For larger data sets, the embedded DB is
> > insufficient.
> >
>
> Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a
> little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums, schools,
> restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can transform
> the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size is
> 40?
>
> A+
> --
> gw
>

My opinion is that users and AOO would be better served if users chose and
installed their own small DB (one that would support some typical
connectivity -- ODBC, JDBC) instead of AOO supplying one with the product.
Many such good small scale DBs exist. It just seems to me that no matter
what we have/choose now as an embedded DB, and problems that may ensue with
it, and therefore might require future replacement, is a continual
problematic cycle we really don't need.

At this point, given that we don't really know what folks re doing with
Base. I think it would be better to do a transitional move -- take out the
embedded DB and therefore "Create new DB" option would go away.  Let the
front-end stuff alone.

Naturally, we would have to investigate some export mechanisms for users,
etc to preserve the data they may already have in ODB.

> >
> >
>

-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.

Hi Andrew,
Hi all,

2013/3/27 Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>

>
> I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small
> data that is relational.  For larger data sets, the embedded DB is
> insufficient.
>

Indeed, end users and a lot of little structures could take profit of a
little DB easy to use, ie associations, sport clubs, TPE, museums, schools,
restaurants, little hotels, storekeepers, etc. Moreover, you can transform
the weakpoint in a marketing argument : why wearing shoes 45 if my size is
40?

A+
-- 
gw

>
>

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Andrew Douglas Pitonyak <an...@pitonyak.org>.

I like an embedded DB for those times that I desire a small DB for small 
data that is relational.  For larger data sets, the embedded DB is 
insufficient.

I see that you specifically ask about an embedded DB, yet some of the 
answers are related to Base in general.

-- 
Andrew Pitonyak
My Macro Document: http://www.pitonyak.org/AndrewMacro.odt
Info:  http://www.pitonyak.org/oo.php


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
<ar...@apache.org>wrote:

> Hi Kay,
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> > Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
>
> One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on
> the forums):
>
> "The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of
> Dollars and more than one decade of development time.
>
> Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever
> be able to work with any other set of database utilities.
>
> I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash
> while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros.


Well I think we have "the balls" but we need to discuss this. I agree that
keeping the connectivity, the front-end portion, is vital, it's the
embedded DB that I am questioning.

Since
> 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is
> proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong."
>
> http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn
>
> > I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
> > great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means,
> for
> > example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added
> responsibility
> > for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
> > front-end?
> >
> > So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
> > directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed
> to
> > using the "front-end" capabilities?
>
> This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so
> you can asume that the "average user" that tries Base with a MS Office
> background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was
> what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such
> an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base.
>
>
> For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO
> it is completely pointless: look at the history in
>
> trunk/main/connectivity
> trunk/main/dbaccess
> trunk/main/reportdesign
> trunk/main/reportbuilder
>
> if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code,
> so it's not a matter of "having the balls" (at least not *just* this);
> it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it
> (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs,
> or developing Base features).
>
> Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine,
> but at the end who will do this?
>
> Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has
> even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how
> to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB
> seems something unrealistic. Just let it die.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@gmail.com>.

+1 to a survey.

Also anecdotal descriptions and links to emails don't help much.
Please list the relevant Bugzilla bugs here so those of us that care
can look at fixing them.

Damjan

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Fred Ollinger <fo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use
> it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS
> Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO
> for all DB needs?
>
> Fred
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
> <ar...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hi Kay,
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
>>> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
>>
>> One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on
>> the forums):
>>
>> "The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of
>> Dollars and more than one decade of development time.
>>
>> Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever
>> be able to work with any other set of database utilities.
>>
>> I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash
>> while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Since
>> 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is
>> proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong."
>>
>> http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn
>>
>>> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
>>> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
>>> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
>>> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
>>> front-end?
>>>
>>> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
>>> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
>>> using the "front-end" capabilities?
>>
>> This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so
>> you can asume that the "average user" that tries Base with a MS Office
>> background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was
>> what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such
>> an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base.
>>
>>
>> For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO
>> it is completely pointless: look at the history in
>>
>> trunk/main/connectivity
>> trunk/main/dbaccess
>> trunk/main/reportdesign
>> trunk/main/reportbuilder
>>
>> if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code,
>> so it's not a matter of "having the balls" (at least not *just* this);
>> it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it
>> (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs,
>> or developing Base features).
>>
>> Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine,
>> but at the end who will do this?
>>
>> Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has
>> even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how
>> to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB
>> seems something unrealistic. Just let it die.
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> --
>> Ariel Constenla-Haile
>> La Plata, Argentina
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Fernand Vanrie <so...@pmgroup.be>.

  Mechtilde
> Hello,
>
> We need base with its easy way to connect to databases like mysql or
> postgresql especially under other OS's than Windows.
>
> we ourselves developed an extension based on this funktion for Law
> Offices in Germany
>
> There is no other free Office Suite which had a databse modul which you
> can use therefore.
i agree
>
> Kind regards
>
> Mechtilde
>
> Am 26.03.2013 01:29, schrieb Fred Ollinger:
>> Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use
>> it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS
>> Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO
>> for all DB needs?
>>
>> Fred
>>
>>


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.

On 3/26/13 7:16 AM, Mechtilde wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> We need base with its easy way to connect to databases like mysql
> or postgresql especially under other OS's than Windows.
> 
> we ourselves developed an extension based on this funktion for Law 
> Offices in Germany
> 
> There is no other free Office Suite which had a databse modul which
> you can use therefore.

the valid point is that we need maintainer for this code. Otherwise it
becomes even more buggy and that is even more damaging we don't have
such support at all from my pov. But I can understand your demand for it.

The key point is that we have to focus and I think we can't do
everything. Power users can do probably a lot with extensions using
the core database API's. I don't know for sure I never looked deeply
in the database area.

Juergen

> 
> Kind regards
> 
> Mechtilde
> 
> Am 26.03.2013 01:29, schrieb Fred Ollinger:
>> Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many
>> people use it? What features do they use? What features do they
>> want. To MS Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you
>> to switch to AOOO for all DB needs?
>> 
>> Fred
>> 
>> 
> 

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Mechtilde <oo...@mechtilde.de>.

Hello,

We need base with its easy way to connect to databases like mysql or
postgresql especially under other OS's than Windows.

we ourselves developed an extension based on this funktion for Law
Offices in Germany

There is no other free Office Suite which had a databse modul which you
can use therefore.

Kind regards

Mechtilde

Am 26.03.2013 01:29, schrieb Fred Ollinger:
> Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use
> it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS
> Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO
> for all DB needs?
> 
> Fred
> 
>

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Fred Ollinger <fo...@gmail.com>.

Perhaps a survey question could be regarding this. How many people use
it? What features do they use? What features do they want. To MS
Access users, it could be, feature(s) would get you to switch to AOOO
for all DB needs?

Fred

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile
<ar...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hi Kay,
>
> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
>> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
>
> One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on
> the forums):
>
> "The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of
> Dollars and more than one decade of development time.
>
> Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever
> be able to work with any other set of database utilities.
>
> I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash
> while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Since
> 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is
> proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong."
>
> http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn
>
>> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
>> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
>> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
>> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
>> front-end?
>>
>> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
>> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
>> using the "front-end" capabilities?
>
> This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so
> you can asume that the "average user" that tries Base with a MS Office
> background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was
> what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such
> an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base.
>
>
> For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO
> it is completely pointless: look at the history in
>
> trunk/main/connectivity
> trunk/main/dbaccess
> trunk/main/reportdesign
> trunk/main/reportbuilder
>
> if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code,
> so it's not a matter of "having the balls" (at least not *just* this);
> it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it
> (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs,
> or developing Base features).
>
> Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine,
> but at the end who will do this?
>
> Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has
> even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how
> to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB
> seems something unrealistic. Just let it die.
>
>
> Regards
> --
> Ariel Constenla-Haile
> La Plata, Argentina

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Fernand Vanrie <so...@pmgroup.be>.

  Ariel ,

>> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.
> One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on
> the forums):
>
> "The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of
> Dollars and more than one decade of development time.
>
> Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever
> be able to work with any other set of database utilities.
>
> I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash
> while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros.
+20

Pros want to connect to there compagny based Database Server, msQL, 
mysql, Oracle etc... and the want Stable and speedy Native Connectors 
(even to MSQL)

General users want to connect to flat files, Spreadsheets , and there 
Email adress books

1% uses the internal base to store some data

so please concentrate the developer efforts to make the connectivity - 
and the frontend functions better and at least uptodate

As a example: Frank Shönheit  made a very usefull grid functionality, it 
works, but need some more work to make it perfect for professional use...

greetz

Fernand

> Since
> 2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is
> proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong."
>
> http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn
>
>> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
>> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
>> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
>> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
>> front-end?
>>
>> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
>> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
>> using the "front-end" capabilities?
> This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so
> you can asume that the "average user" that tries Base with a MS Office
> background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was
> what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such
> an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base.
>
>
> For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO
> it is completely pointless: look at the history in
>
> trunk/main/connectivity
> trunk/main/dbaccess
> trunk/main/reportdesign
> trunk/main/reportbuilder
>
> if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code,
> so it's not a matter of "having the balls" (at least not *just* this);
> it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it
> (be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs,
> or developing Base features).
>
> Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine,
> but at the end who will do this?
>
> Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has
> even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how
> to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB
> seems something unrealistic. Just let it die.
>
>
> Regards


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Ariel Constenla-Haile <ar...@apache.org>.

Hi Kay,

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 03:58:06PM -0700, Kay Schenk wrote:
> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion.

One of my favorites quotes about Base is from Andreas Säger (villeroy on
the forums):

"The difference between MS Access and Base amounts to several millions of
Dollars and more than one decade of development time.

Once you got used to MS Access, it is rather unlikely that you will ever
be able to work with any other set of database utilities.

I wish the AOO team had the balls to remove all the experimental trash
while keeping bare important database connectivity for the pros. Since
2006 the whole concept of Base with the embedded HSQLDB and wizards is
proven to be completely wrong, wrong, wrong."

http://markmail.org/message/izhtpii5li57lnjn

> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
> front-end?
> 
> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
> using the "front-end" capabilities?

This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so
you can asume that the "average user" that tries Base with a MS Office
background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was
what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such
an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base.

For the whole topic, though it might be interesting to discuss it, IMHO
it is completely pointless: look at the history in

trunk/main/connectivity
trunk/main/dbaccess
trunk/main/reportdesign
trunk/main/reportbuilder

if there is no one to maintain the code, it will end up being dead code,
so it's not a matter of "having the balls" (at least not *just* this);
it's a matter of knowing the code, or willing to learn it and work on it
(be it for removing Base embedded completely, or for fixing Base bugs,
or developing Base features).

Many mails can be written discussing dropping embedded HSQLDB engine,
but at the end who will do this?

Given that the not-so-difficult bug for building with Java 7 (it has
even the explanation from the HSQLDB developer on the bug, telling how
to fix it) didn't find someone to take care of him, removing HSQLDB
seems something unrealistic. Just let it die.

Regards
-- 
Ariel Constenla-Haile
La Plata, Argentina

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Alexander Thurgood <al...@gmail.com>.

Le 26/03/13 14:52, Rob Weir a écrit :

Hi Rob,

> Some other interesting facts, most of which we're already familiar with:
> 
> 1) Microsoft doesn't include Access in their base Office packages.  So
> on the one hand this means that most Office users don't use a
> database, or they do lightweight database work in their spreadsheet.
> On the other hand, the fact that OpenOffice has a database included is
> a distinguishing feature of OpenOffice.

Well, a check today of an upgrade offer for Office 2010 on one of my
Windows machines led me to a Microsoft Office 365 page on which it was
clearly stated that for 99 Euros, I could get a copy of MSOffice 365
Family Edition including Access.



Alex



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 2:27 AM, Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
> Hi all,
>
> 2013/3/26 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
>
>> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started
>> looking
>> > into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into
>> > Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ
>> > (edited a LOT just recently):
>> >
>> >[...]
>>
>
>
>> So the future is likely going to look like one of the following:
>>
>> 1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in
>> maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base.
>> As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the
>> senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users
>> as well.
>>
>
> Why not approach Libo on this question and try to obtain a shared
> collaboration on Base ?. After all, they have the same problem. Perhaps
> they could agree on this question which should appear as a win win party.
> Just an idea.
>

We (IBM) have attempted, several times, to raise this topic of code
collaboration with the corporate sponsors of LibreOffice: SUSE and
Redhat.  Unfortunately, our overtures have been rebuffed each time.
But we won't stop trying.

-Rob

> A+
> --
> gw
>
>>
>>

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Guy Waterval <wa...@gmail.com>.

Hi Rob,
Hi all,

2013/3/26 Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>

> On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started
> looking
> > into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into
> > Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ
> > (edited a LOT just recently):
> >
> >[...]
>


> So the future is likely going to look like one of the following:
>
> 1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in
> maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base.
> As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the
> senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users
> as well.
>

Why not approach Libo on this question and try to obtain a shared
collaboration on Base ?. After all, they have the same problem. Perhaps
they could agree on this question which should appear as a win win party.
Just an idea.

A+
-- 
gw

>
>

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.

On 3/26/13 5:34 PM, Alexandro Colorado wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:
> 
>> On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
>>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
>>>
>>>
>>> yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
>>> presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
>>> OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"
>>
>> I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem.
>>
>> Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source
>> and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of
>> the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally
>> think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to
>> solve their problems first and want to save money for other things.
>>
> 
> I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if we
> have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with microsoft,
> we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with
> microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud
> offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to the
> office suite.

Well my main point is to lower the expectation and focus on what is
possible. Sure everybody wants a free alternative to MS and we have
shown that we can be a good alternative and can compete in certain areas.

If you go to somebody and say hey use OpenOffice it is a replacement for
MS Office but for free. The expectation is high. But if you ask first
what do you have to do with an office suite and have you tried
OpenOffice? It can probably do what you need and it is an open source
and open standard based office suite where you don't have to pay any
license fee. ...

We will of course compete indirectly but I would set the expectation
differently.

> 
> If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to us,
> since they have a more developed suite with many more components that what
> we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is somewhat
> more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part of
> the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have also
> asked for a Visio-like module).

I don't get your point here. I don't know Calligra in detail but know
that it works well for certain users to fulfill their tasks. Perfect
they are happy with it and that's fine.

I am open to support anybody who is interested to work on a new
application or whatever feature is wanted and where we see demand.

But all this discussion come back to the question who will do the work?

Drawing big pictures of what we need is easy but not enough.

Juergen

> 
> 
> 
>>
>> If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and
>> if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible
>> to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or
>> something like that.
>>
>> We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1
>> replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can
>> live perfectly with OpenOffice.
>>
>>>
>>> My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for
>> a
>>> resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice)
>> was
>>> filled by Adabas D.
>>>
>>> One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database
>>> module is praised:
>>>
>>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
>>>
>>> ////
>>> * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access
>>> requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access.
>> Adabas
>>> integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily
>>> create mail merge documents.
>>> ///
>>>
>>> So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a
>>> database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
>>> Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
>>
> 
> I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am
> not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as
> python and other components shipped with the suite.
> 
> 
>>>
>>> FC
>>> PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code,
>> since
>>> we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any
>>> case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
>>> existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases
>>> after all so it should be gone'.
>>
> 
> Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong
> need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format that
> makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL
> language within Excel called DAO.
> 
> It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet
> centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base.
> 
> 
>>>
>>
>> nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it,
>> nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for
>> it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some
>> degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project
>> at all.
>> I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by
>> volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get
>> unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features
>> and improvements ...
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>>
>>
> 
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by janI <ja...@apache.org>.

On 26 March 2013 18:16, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:
>
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com
> > >wrote:
> >
> > > On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
> > > > presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
> > > > OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"
> > >
> > > I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem.
> > >
> > > Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source
> > > and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of
> > > the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally
> > > think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to
> > > solve their problems first and want to save money for other things.
> > >
> >
> > I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if
> we
> > have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with
> microsoft,
> > we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with
> > microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud
> > offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to
> the
> > office suite.
> >
> > If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to
> us,
> > since they have a more developed suite with many more components that
> what
> > we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is
> somewhat
> > more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part
> of
> > the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have
> also
> > asked for a Visio-like module).
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and
> > > if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible
> > > to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office
> or
> > > something like that.
> > >
> > > We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1
> > > replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can
> > > live perfectly with OpenOffice.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need
> > for
> > > a
> > > > resident database engine, which in the commercial offering
> (StarOffice)
> > > was
> > > > filled by Adabas D.
> > > >
> > > > One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the
> > database
> > > > module is praised:
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
> > > >
> > > > ////
> > > > * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS
> > Access
> > > > requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access.
> > > Adabas
> > > > integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can
> > easily
> > > > create mail merge documents.
> > > > ///
> > > >
> > > > So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to
> > find a
> > > > database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
> > > > Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
> > >
> >
> > I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am
> > not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as
> > python and other components shipped with the suite.
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > FC
> > > > PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code,
> > > since
> > > > we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in
> > any
> > > > case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
> > > > existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use
> > databases
> > > > after all so it should be gone'.
> > >
> >
> > Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong
> > need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format
> that
> > makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL
> > language within Excel called DAO.
> >
> > It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet
> > centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base.
> >
> >
> > As a quick reply to the spreadsheet comment. Already, there exist DB
> functions in Calc, and Base can import spreadsheets into its front-end if
> you will.
>
> We are living in a far, far different world than  when StarOffice was first
> introduced. The database world, who creates them, who maintains them is
> quite different.
>
> I brought this up to suggest that the focus of Base be changed, not
> eliminated entirely.  Maintaining/developing the connectivity pieces to
> various forms of databases is probably manageable. A full-blown embedded DB
> -- maybe not.  What are the consequences of a full-blown embedded DB to
> both developers and end users?
>
It is soo much easier just to use an open source db, that are maintained by
database specialist. If we should embed one (which I do not like), we
should anyhow not develop it but simply have it as a third party package.


>
> We do need to focus on preserving the quality of the product -- in total.
>
+1

>
> > >
> > >
> > > nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it,
> > > nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for
> > > it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some
> > > degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project
> > > at all.
> > > I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by
> > > volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get
> > > unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features
> > > and improvements ...
> > >
> > > Juergen
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Alexandro Colorado
> > Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> > http://es.openoffice.org
> >
>
>
>
> --
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."
>

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com>.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:34 AM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org> wrote:

> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jogischmidt@gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> > >
> > >> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
> > >
> > >
> > > yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
> > > presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
> > > OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"
> >
> > I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem.
> >
> > Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source
> > and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of
> > the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally
> > think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to
> > solve their problems first and want to save money for other things.
> >
>
> I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if we
> have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with microsoft,
> we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with
> microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud
> offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to the
> office suite.
>
> If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to us,
> since they have a more developed suite with many more components that what
> we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is somewhat
> more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part of
> the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have also
> asked for a Visio-like module).
>
>
>
> >
> > If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and
> > if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible
> > to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or
> > something like that.
> >
> > We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1
> > replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can
> > live perfectly with OpenOffice.
> >
> > >
> > > My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need
> for
> > a
> > > resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice)
> > was
> > > filled by Adabas D.
> > >
> > > One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the
> database
> > > module is praised:
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
> > >
> > > ////
> > > * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS
> Access
> > > requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access.
> > Adabas
> > > integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can
> easily
> > > create mail merge documents.
> > > ///
> > >
> > > So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to
> find a
> > > database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
> > > Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
> >
>
> I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am
> not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as
> python and other components shipped with the suite.
>
>
> > >
> > > FC
> > > PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code,
> > since
> > > we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in
> any
> > > case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
> > > existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use
> databases
> > > after all so it should be gone'.
> >
>
> Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong
> need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format that
> makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL
> language within Excel called DAO.
>
> It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet
> centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base.
>
>
> As a quick reply to the spreadsheet comment. Already, there exist DB
functions in Calc, and Base can import spreadsheets into its front-end if
you will.

We are living in a far, far different world than  when StarOffice was first
introduced. The database world, who creates them, who maintains them is
quite different.

I brought this up to suggest that the focus of Base be changed, not
eliminated entirely.  Maintaining/developing the connectivity pieces to
various forms of databases is probably manageable. A full-blown embedded DB
-- maybe not.  What are the consequences of a full-blown embedded DB to
both developers and end users?

We do need to focus on preserving the quality of the product -- in total.

> >
> >
> > nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it,
> > nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for
> > it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some
> > degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project
> > at all.
> > I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by
> > volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get
> > unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features
> > and improvements ...
> >
> > Juergen
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Alexandro Colorado
> Apache OpenOffice Contributor
> http://es.openoffice.org
>



-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MzK

"Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@oooes.org>.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 8:52 AM, Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>wrote:

> On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> > On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
> >
> >
> > yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
> > presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
> > OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"
>
> I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem.
>
> Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source
> and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of
> the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally
> think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to
> solve their problems first and want to save money for other things.
>

I am amazed how you select your own questions and then answer them as if we
have to choose one or the other. I think we want to compete with microsoft,
we have done it for years. I dont think we want to stop competing with
microsoft. That's why many users ask about us developing a mobile/cloud
offering. Because they want to see a strong open source competition to the
office suite.

If we wanted the second, then Calligra would be by far more advanced to us,
since they have a more developed suite with many more components that what
we currently ship. Kexi is by far more developed than Base, and is somewhat
more flexible than Base using SQLite as the embeded DB and MySQL as part of
the QtDB module. Let alone other modules like Kivio (which users have also
asked for a Visio-like module).

>
> If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and
> if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible
> to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or
> something like that.
>
> We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1
> replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can
> live perfectly with OpenOffice.
>
> >
> > My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for
> a
> > resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice)
> was
> > filled by Adabas D.
> >
> > One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database
> > module is praised:
> >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
> >
> > ////
> > * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access
> > requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access.
> Adabas
> > integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily
> > create mail merge documents.
> > ///
> >
> > So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a
> > database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
> > Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
>

I would think SQLite is powerful enough to handle this job, however I am
not sure how license compatible is o if it gets the same treatment as
python and other components shipped with the suite.

> >
> > FC
> > PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code,
> since
> > we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any
> > case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
> > existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases
> > after all so it should be gone'.
>

Actually spreadsheets shouldnt be used as database, so there is a strong
need to easily migrate those huge spreadsheets into a database format that
makes it more reliable. It has got so bad that MS decided to create a SQL
language within Excel called DAO.

It bares the question if Base should change to have a more spreadsheet
centric aproach, meaning that we should include formulas into Base.

> >
>
> nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it,
> nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for
> it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some
> degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project
> at all.
> I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by
> volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get
> unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features
> and improvements ...
>
> Juergen
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
>
>

-- 
Alexandro Colorado
Apache OpenOffice Contributor
http://es.openoffice.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.

On 3/26/13 3:35 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
> 
>> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
> 
> 
> yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
> presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
> OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"

I don't see any sarcasm here but a valid order to address this problem.

Do we really want compete with MS? Or do we want provide an open source
and open standard based office productivity suite that can do most of
the daily tasks of common users of such an office suite? I personally
think we want the second and want help people who are open minded to
solve their problems first and want to save money for other things.

If MS is better in certain areas users have to ask if they need it and
if they depend on the feature. In case of companies it always possible
to have a mixed deployment of 95% OpenOffice and 5% percent MS Office or
something like that.

We are a very good and high quality alternative but not always a 1:1
replacement. It really depends what you have to do. I personally can
live perfectly with OpenOffice.

> 
> My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a
> resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was
> filled by Adabas D.
> 
> One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database
> module is praised:
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
> 
> ////
> * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access
> requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas
> integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily
> create mail merge documents.
> ///
> 
> So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a
> database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
> Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
> 
> FC
> PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since
> we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any
> case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
> existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases
> after all so it should be gone'.
> 

nobody said we don't want, the key point that nobody worked on it,
nobody maintains it, does improvements etc. We see of course demand for
it but on the other hand we also see that it makes only sense with some
degree of quality. Everything else can be more damaging for the project
at all.
I think it is not so hard to understand that a project driven by
volunteers need volunteers for the certain areas or code get
unmaintained, unstable, buggy over time or lacks for certain features
and improvements ...

Juergen

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Jürgen Schmidt <jo...@gmail.com>.

On 3/26/13 4:00 PM, Damjan Jovanovic wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
>>
>>
>> yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
>> presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
>> OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"
>>
>> My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a
>> resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was
>> filled by Adabas D.
>>
>> One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database
>> module is praised:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
>>
>> ////
>> * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access
>> requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas
>> integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily
>> create mail merge documents.
>> ///
>>
>> So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a
>> database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
>> Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
>>
>> FC
>> PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since
>> we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any
>> case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
>> existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases
>> after all so it should be gone'.
> 
> +1
> 
> Again I ask: where are the Bugzilla bugs?
> 
> A quick search finds a corruption bug
> (https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=55496) which states:
> "While it's difficult to fix this with our current approach, where the data is
> just some sub-streams in a ZIP package, we need to somehow address this. I fear
> this might in fact only be possible with a package format (replacing the ZIP
> package format for this purpose) which allows O(1) random access to all of its
> parts."
> 
> If that's the only problem, I don't think the author of that message
> realized that there is a way to get O(1) random access to the contents
> of a zipped file: ZIP files allow each archived file to use its own
> compression type, including no compression. HSQLDB could write
> directly to its uncompressed byte range in the ZIP file, with a thin
> shim checking for when it attempts to write beyond the end of this
> range (ie. grow the database), and then it could expand the ZIP file
> to accommodate it. With a bit of cleverness, this could even be done
> in-place, by keeping the HSQL database at the end of the ZIP file
> (when possible), and just moving up and updating the ZIP directories
> (and other files, when it's not at the end) that follow it.
> 
> Oh and as for Jürgen's comment:
> +1 to competing with Microsoft, because any good office suite
> naturally will - and should.

I stopped dreaming at least for this specific topic and be more
realistic ;-)

Juergen


> 
> Damjan
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org
> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Damjan Jovanovic <da...@apache.org>.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 4:35 PM, Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> My ordered preference would be 1, 3
>
>
> yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
> presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
> OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"
>
> My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a
> resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was
> filled by Adabas D.
>
> One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database
> module is praised:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4
>
> ////
> * StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access
> requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas
> integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily
> create mail merge documents.
> ///
>
> So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a
> database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
> Adabas D had in StarOffice?.
>
> FC
> PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since
> we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any
> case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
> existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases
> after all so it should be gone'.

+1

Again I ask: where are the Bugzilla bugs?

A quick search finds a corruption bug
(https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=55496) which states:
"While it's difficult to fix this with our current approach, where the data is
just some sub-streams in a ZIP package, we need to somehow address this. I fear
this might in fact only be possible with a package format (replacing the ZIP
package format for this purpose) which allows O(1) random access to all of its
parts."

If that's the only problem, I don't think the author of that message
realized that there is a way to get O(1) random access to the contents
of a zipped file: ZIP files allow each archived file to use its own
compression type, including no compression. HSQLDB could write
directly to its uncompressed byte range in the ZIP file, with a thin
shim checking for when it attempts to write beyond the end of this
range (ie. grow the database), and then it could expand the ZIP file
to accommodate it. With a bit of cleverness, this could even be done
in-place, by keeping the HSQL database at the end of the ZIP file
(when possible), and just moving up and updating the ZIP directories
(and other files, when it's not at the end) that follow it.

Oh and as for Jürgen's comment:
+1 to competing with Microsoft, because any good office suite
naturally will - and should.

Damjan

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Fernando Cassia <fc...@gmail.com>.

On Tue, Mar 26, 2013 at 9:52 AM, Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org> wrote:

> My ordered preference would be 1, 3


yeah, great *sarcasm*, let's add another bullet point to a microsoft
presentation titled 'how Microsoft Office is better than
OpenOfffice.org".... OO.o lacks database? check!"

My opinion is that maybe Sun put HSQLDB in there to fill in the need for a
resident database engine, which in the commercial offering (StarOffice) was
filled by Adabas D.

One can still read the positive reviews of StarOffice where the database
module is praised:

http://www.amazon.com/Sun-Microsystems-0614647643195-StarOffice-7/dp/B0000DG2N4

////
* StarOffice Adabas (database application) is included (getting MS Access
requires buying MS Office Pro) and is easier to use than MS Access. Adabas
integrates with other StarOffice apps so, for instance, users can easily
create mail merge documents.
///

So, if HSQLDB is not up to par, maybe the realistic solution is to find a
database engine lightweight and powerful enough to take the role that
Adabas D had in StarOffice?.

FC
PS: I read this whole thread as 'we don't want to maintain this code, since
we don't understand it, and we fear it's buggy'. But the solution in any
case is replacing the database module for another, or improving the
existing code, not making excuses for saying 'people don't use databases
after all so it should be gone'.

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Rob Weir <ro...@apache.org>.

On Mon, Mar 25, 2013 at 6:58 PM, Kay Schenk <ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Well no doubt this may start a rather heated discussion. I started looking
> into the history of the Base component, who is using it now (looked into
> Forums, users discussion list), and finally came upon the following FAQ
> (edited a LOT just recently):
>
> http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/FAQ_%28Base%29
>
> which seems to indicate (hmmm)--
>
>  "Is Base a database?
>
> Not technically. Base serves several roles within the *Office suite
> (AOO<http://www.openoffice.org/product/index.html>/
> LibO <http://www.libreoffice.org/>), but Base *itself* is strictly an
> interface (or front-end<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa141493%28office.10%29.aspx>)
> designed to connect to various types of databases, by means of
> driver<http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Documentation/DevGuide/Database/Driver_Specifics>files."
>
>
> ...and then
>
> "Base offers to create an *all-in-one 'embedded database' file* similar to
> MS Access. In this configuration, the front-end components (queries, forms,
> reports and macros) are packaged together with the database files produced
> by HSQLDB, all within a single Base (.odb) file. Unfortunately, this
> single-file concept has proven unreliable with Base, leading to rampant
> data corruption<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewtopic.php?p=162653#p162653>.
> So it's best to avoid the 'Create new database' wizard in Base thereby
> avoiding 'embedded database' files (perhaps with the exception of
> developing prototypes or distributing
> examples<http://forum.openoffice.org/en/forum/viewforum.php?f=100>).
> Fortunately, Base offers an alternative wizard which produces a robust '
> split-database<http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa141493%28office.10%29.aspx>'
> configuration in which the database (tables and user-data) is stored in a
> separate file (or files). Steps for creating a new 'split-database'
> utilizing the built-in HSQL database-engine with Base are outlined below."
>
>
> I don't really know who the author is, but, I too, had been giving this a
> great deal of thought. Does a user know what any of this really means, for
> example. And, including an embedded DB like HSQL puts added responsibility
> for that embedded DB on this project.  What if Base were  strictly  a
> front-end?
>
> So, does anyone have any further insights into how many users, if any,
> directly use Base to create and use their own individual DBs as opposed to
> using the "front-end" capabilities?
>

Some other interesting facts, most of which we're already familiar with:

1) Microsoft doesn't include Access in their base Office packages.  So
on the one hand this means that most Office users don't use a
database, or they do lightweight database work in their spreadsheet.
On the other hand, the fact that OpenOffice has a database included is
a distinguishing feature of OpenOffice.

2) Symphony did not include Base.  So as we port Symphony improvements
over to OpenOffice,  we should not expect any Base improvements.  So
unless there is more dev effort in Base, it will fall behind in UI and
accessibility as well.

3) As others have mentioned, Base is only as good as we have
maintenance of it.  Some of mentioned the dev side.  We should also
note that knowledge of Base is a limiting factor on the QA side as
well. Since most users don't use Base, we have a shortage of testers
who know Base.

4) Although they are not the majority, there are certainly some users
who depend on Base and are passionate about it.  No survey is going to
resolve this for us.  There are Base users.

So the future is likely going to look like one of the following:

1) We encourage a critical mass of volunteers interested in
maintaining, improving, testing, documenting, supporting, etc., Base.
As we know achieving critical mass is made more difficult by the
senseless forking of the project, which hurts LibreOffice Base users
as well.

2) We continue as-is, with a gradual degradation in stability, until
an incompatible OS change, or a security flaw comes along and
administers the coup de grâce.

3) We drop Base before it gets to the point where it harms the
reputation of the project.

My ordered preference would be 1, 3, 2.

-Rob

>
>
> --
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
>
> "Achieving happiness requires the right combination of Zen and Zin."

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org

Re: questions about Base---do we need an embedded DB?

Posted by Alexander Thurgood <al...@gmail.com>.

Le 26/03/13 00:39, Ariel Constenla-Haile a écrit :

Hi all,

> This is hard too guess. The majority of AOO users are Windows users, so
> you can asume that the "average user" that tries Base with a MS Office
> background, is looking for something like MS Access. I guess this was
> what drove Sun to create the ODB file with embedded db inside. With such
> an expectation, no wonder this average user gets frustrated with Base.
> 

Those who do use the embedded hsqldb ODB file format in France where I
live, be it with OOo, AOO, or LO, tend to be mostly associations, clubs,
individuals or other not-for-profit entities as it previously solved
their problem of not having to fork out for Access and was
cross-platform. This was certainly at least the case until Office 365
came out, for which I now see (this morning) that even the Family &
Small Business version includes Access (for Windows only, but
nonetheless interesting enough).

So, it would be worth bearing in mind also that any choice to drop
embedded database engine support would probably lead current ODB/ODF
users to switch back to MSOffice - after all, if you can have Office 365
Family for 99 Euros and install it on up to 3 different Windows PCs, why
go to the hassle of using AOO/LO/OOo ?

As for businesses that use this embedded format in France, I wouldn't
like to hazard a guess. Personally and professionally, I've only ever
used StarOffice/OOo/AOO/LO to access an external data source / db engine
/ db server.


Alex




---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@openoffice.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@openoffice.apache.org