You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@openoffice.apache.org by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> on 2011/06/21 09:25:20 UTC
Some more strange files in the OOo code
Hi,
some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
(1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
(2) connectivity/workben/TT/StartTest.class
Binary file committed to the repository; I doubt that we want to have
that in the Apache repo. As it is only test code, we can check that
later. Would be nice to know what this is nevertheless. There is a java
file with the same name in this folder.
(3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
* This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
* All rights reserverd.
We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
(4) More binary files in our code
extensions/test/ole/EventListenerSample/VBEventListener/VBasicEventListener.dll
xmerge/source/activesync/BIN/xmergesync.dll
I doubt that we want to have them in the repository, or ... ?
(5) A header from GNU c library
hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
Are we allowed to use it in the build?
(6) Header files only with Copyright header, but no license
twain/inc/twain.h
ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma.h
(7) MPL headers
xmlsecurity/source/xmlsec/nss/nssrenam.h
It's only a header - I assume that because we can't use nss anyway this
header file is obsolete also.
(8) Regexp
regexp/source/reclass.hxx
regexp/source/reclass.cxx
A complete mess, IMHO.
Comments welcome.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Martin Hollmichel <ma...@googlemail.com>.
On 06/22/2011 01:38 PM, Yuri Dario wrote:
> Hi Mathias,
>
>> That would be fine. It is not very urgent, as we won't build OOo on OS/2
>> soon. We can just leave that single file out. If you want to continue
>> development of the port, you can add the missing file.
> the file is not missing from tree, it only have the wrong license/owner in it.
yes, it seems that for the os/2 port some more files were added from
some sdk of other stuff, there all required to get moved to the external
stuff to get separated from the OOo tree. I'll be glad to help with this,
> thanks!
>
Martin
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Jun 22, 2011, at 1:38 PM, Yuri Dario wrote:
> Hi Mathias,
>
>> That would be fine. It is not very urgent, as we won't build OOo on OS/2
>> soon. We can just leave that single file out. If you want to continue
>> development of the port, you can add the missing file.
>
> the file is not missing from tree, it only have the wrong license/owner in it.
Not missing from the current source repository at openoffice.org, but potentially not migrated to the new apache.org repository of the Apache OpenOffice.org incubator project. See <http://wiki.apache.org/incubator/OpenOfficeProposal> (sorry, I cc'ed you onto this mail thread without giving you proper context).
-Stephan
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Yuri Dario <mc...@mclink.it>.
Hi Mathias,
> That would be fine. It is not very urgent, as we won't build OOo on OS/2
> soon. We can just leave that single file out. If you want to continue
> development of the port, you can add the missing file.
the file is not missing from tree, it only have the wrong license/owner in it.
thanks!
--
Bye,
Yuri Dario
/*
* OS/2 open source software
* http://web.os2power.com/yuri
* http://www.netlabs.org
*/
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 22.06.2011 09:50, Yuri Dario wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>>> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
>
> please don't do this. The OS/2 version of OOo is currently at release
> 3.2, and plans are to update it to a more recent version.
> os2port08 cws has been created for this task. Unfortunately, other
> jobs are keeping me too busy :-(
>
>
>> The file apparently came in three years ago via CWS os2port03 (<http://
>
> yes, I added this file to public CWS; previously that file was not
> made public because we were publishing only changes to existing code.
> at some point we decided to release all OOo source code. The license
> associated with many files has been changed a lot of time ago, this
> one left out it seems.
>
> It is not a problem to update the license to a new model.
That would be fine. It is not very urgent, as we won't build OOo on OS/2
soon. We can just leave that single file out. If you want to continue
development of the port, you can add the missing file.
Thanks for the information,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 09:50:02 +0200, Yuri Dario <mc...@mclink.it>
wrote:
> Hi all,
>
>
>>> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
>
> please don't do this. The OS/2 version of OOo is currently at release
> 3.2, and plans are to update it to a more recent version.
> os2port08 cws has been created for this task. Unfortunately, other
> jobs are keeping me too busy :-(
>
>
Wow ! It is a pleasant surprise to see this !
I wonder which compiler you are using: is
OpenWatcom up to the task?
Cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Yuri Dario <mc...@mclink.it>.
Hi all,
>> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
please don't do this. The OS/2 version of OOo is currently at release
3.2, and plans are to update it to a more recent version.
os2port08 cws has been created for this task. Unfortunately, other
jobs are keeping me too busy :-(
> The file apparently came in three years ago via CWS os2port03 (<http://
yes, I added this file to public CWS; previously that file was not
made public because we were publishing only changes to existing code.
at some point we decided to release all OOo source code. The license
associated with many files has been changed a lot of time ago, this
one left out it seems.
It is not a problem to update the license to a new model.
--
Bye,
Yuri Dario
/*
* OS/2 open source software
* http://web.os2power.com/yuri
* http://www.netlabs.org
*/
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Jun 21, 2011, at 5:01 PM, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 21.06.2011 16:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 15:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> On 21.06.2011 12:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 08:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>>>>>
>>>>> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
>>>>> * All rights reserverd.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>>>>
>>>> It's possible Oracle have inherited a copyright assignment/license for this code from StarDivision which never resulted in the actual source being updated, in which case we could put it under AL.
>>>
>>> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
>>
>> I agree, but it would still be better to get that code under AL first just in case there's someone downstream who wants to use it.
> Good point. But then we need to look for someone who knows about this file.
The file apparently came in three years ago via CWS os2port03 (<http://eis.services.openoffice.org/EIS2/cws.ShowCWS?Path=DEV300%2Fos2port03>) by ydario (now on cc)---maybe he can enlighten us.
-Stephan
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 21.06.2011 16:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2011, at 15:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>
>> On 21.06.2011 12:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>>
>>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 08:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>>
>>>> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>>>>
>>>> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
>>>> * All rights reserverd.
>>>>
>>>> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>>>
>>> It's possible Oracle have inherited a copyright assignment/license for this code from StarDivision which never resulted in the actual source being updated, in which case we could put it under AL.
>>
>> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
>
> I agree, but it would still be better to get that code under AL first just in case there's someone downstream who wants to use it.
Good point. But then we need to look for someone who knows about this file.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Andy Brown <an...@the-martin-byrd.net>.
Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
>
>> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
> ...
>>
>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 15:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
> ...
>>> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
>>
>> I agree, but it would still be better to get that code
>> under AL first just in case there's someone downstream who
>> wants to use it.
>>
>
> +1 to just dropping it.
>
> I hate to say this since I was an OS/2 fan but it's really
> not worth it. There are binary releases somewhere plus it's
> still available under LGPL so the LO guys can take it.
>
> Pedro.
I agree with Simon, that it maybe needed so get it under Al.
Andy
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com> wrote:
> From: Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>
...
>
> On 21 Jun 2011, at 15:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>
...
> > I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
>
> I agree, but it would still be better to get that code
> under AL first just in case there's someone downstream who
> wants to use it.
>
+1 to just dropping it.
I hate to say this since I was an OS/2 fan but it's really
not worth it. There are binary releases somewhere plus it's
still available under LGPL so the LO guys can take it.
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 21 Jun 2011, at 15:13, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> On 21.06.2011 12:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
>>
>> On 21 Jun 2011, at 08:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>>
>>> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>>>
>>> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
>>> * All rights reserverd.
>>>
>>> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>>
>> It's possible Oracle have inherited a copyright assignment/license for this code from StarDivision which never resulted in the actual source being updated, in which case we could put it under AL.
>
> I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
I agree, but it would still be better to get that code under AL first just in case there's someone downstream who wants to use it.
S.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 21.06.2011 12:15, Simon Phipps wrote:
>
> On 21 Jun 2011, at 08:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
>
>> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>>
>> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
>> * All rights reserverd.
>>
>> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>
> It's possible Oracle have inherited a copyright assignment/license for this code from StarDivision which never resulted in the actual source being updated, in which case we could put it under AL.
>
> S.
>
>
I opt for dropping OS/2 support completely.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 21 Jun 2011, at 08:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>
> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
> * All rights reserverd.
>
> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
It's possible Oracle have inherited a copyright assignment/license for this code from StarDivision which never resulted in the actual source being updated, in which case we could put it under AL.
S.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
Thanks. I did not see that. No need to move the page. I'll just
link to it from this project page:
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOOUSERS/Release-Dev-Plan
Regards,
-Rob
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:59 AM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi Rob,
>
> I already had put the list into the Ooo wiki some days ago:
>
> http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ApacheMigration#Regexp
>
> For the files we already treated on the list, the status is there also.
>
> Feel free to move to the apache wiki what you see fit.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
> On 22.06.2011 15:42, Rob Weir wrote:
>>
>> Hi Mathias,
>>
>> Would it be possible to get the list of 3rd party modules and their
>> current status up on the wiki? Discussions should remain on the
>> list, I think. But if the module list is up on the wiki, along with
>> status, then we can do some of the analysis in parallel.
>>
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOODEV/Wiki+Home
>>
>> -Rob
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
>>>
>>> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
>>>
>>> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
>>>
>>> (2) connectivity/workben/TT/StartTest.class
>>>
>>> Binary file committed to the repository; I doubt that we want to have
>>> that
>>> in the Apache repo. As it is only test code, we can check that later.
>>> Would
>>> be nice to know what this is nevertheless. There is a java file with the
>>> same name in this folder.
>>>
>>> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>>>
>>> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
>>> * All rights reserverd.
>>>
>>> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>>>
>>> (4) More binary files in our code
>>>
>>>
>>> extensions/test/ole/EventListenerSample/VBEventListener/VBasicEventListener.dll
>>> xmerge/source/activesync/BIN/xmergesync.dll
>>>
>>> I doubt that we want to have them in the repository, or ... ?
>>>
>>> (5) A header from GNU c library
>>>
>>> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>>>
>>> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>>>
>>> (6) Header files only with Copyright header, but no license
>>>
>>> twain/inc/twain.h
>>> ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma.h
>>>
>>> (7) MPL headers
>>>
>>> xmlsecurity/source/xmlsec/nss/nssrenam.h
>>>
>>> It's only a header - I assume that because we can't use nss anyway this
>>> header file is obsolete also.
>>>
>>> (8) Regexp
>>>
>>> regexp/source/reclass.hxx
>>> regexp/source/reclass.cxx
>>>
>>> A complete mess, IMHO.
>>>
>>> Comments welcome.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mathias
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
> OpenOffice.org Engineering at Oracle: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
> Please don't reply to "nospamformba@gmx.de".
> I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.
>
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
Hi Rob,
I already had put the list into the Ooo wiki some days ago:
http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/ApacheMigration#Regexp
For the files we already treated on the list, the status is there also.
Feel free to move to the apache wiki what you see fit.
Regards,
Mathias
On 22.06.2011 15:42, Rob Weir wrote:
> Hi Mathias,
>
> Would it be possible to get the list of 3rd party modules and their
> current status up on the wiki? Discussions should remain on the
> list, I think. But if the module list is up on the wiki, along with
> status, then we can do some of the analysis in parallel.
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOODEV/Wiki+Home
>
> -Rob
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
>>
>> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
>>
>> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
>>
>> (2) connectivity/workben/TT/StartTest.class
>>
>> Binary file committed to the repository; I doubt that we want to have that
>> in the Apache repo. As it is only test code, we can check that later. Would
>> be nice to know what this is nevertheless. There is a java file with the
>> same name in this folder.
>>
>> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>>
>> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
>> * All rights reserverd.
>>
>> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>>
>> (4) More binary files in our code
>>
>> extensions/test/ole/EventListenerSample/VBEventListener/VBasicEventListener.dll
>> xmerge/source/activesync/BIN/xmergesync.dll
>>
>> I doubt that we want to have them in the repository, or ... ?
>>
>> (5) A header from GNU c library
>>
>> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>>
>> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>>
>> (6) Header files only with Copyright header, but no license
>>
>> twain/inc/twain.h
>> ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma.h
>>
>> (7) MPL headers
>>
>> xmlsecurity/source/xmlsec/nss/nssrenam.h
>>
>> It's only a header - I assume that because we can't use nss anyway this
>> header file is obsolete also.
>>
>> (8) Regexp
>>
>> regexp/source/reclass.hxx
>> regexp/source/reclass.cxx
>>
>> A complete mess, IMHO.
>>
>> Comments welcome.
>>
>> Regards,
>> Mathias
>>
>
--
Mathias Bauer (mba) - Project Lead OpenOffice.org Writer
OpenOffice.org Engineering at Oracle: http://blogs.sun.com/GullFOSS
Please don't reply to "nospamformba@gmx.de".
I use it for the OOo lists and only rarely read other mails sent to it.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:57:03 +0200, Mathias Bauer
<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 22.06.2011 20:33, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 6/22/11, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (5) A header from GNU c library
>>>
>>> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>>>
>>> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>>>
>>
>> I looked this up and it appears to be part of an old
>> version of GNU libiconv. XFree86 also has a copy
>> under a liberal (MIT?) license:
>>
>> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h
> Where do you see that this comes with a liberal license?
>
The XFree86 Project never adopted GPL software and they would
never go around removing copyrights. Being an
X derivative they prefer an MIT like license. To be strict
one has to start climbing the source tree though.
OTOH, the BSDs have their own implementations of libiconv so
this header shouldn't be a problem at all.
Cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 23.06.2011 17:29, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:57:03 +0200, Mathias Bauer
> <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 22.06.2011 20:33, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> --- On Wed, 6/22/11, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> (5) A header from GNU c library
>>>>
>>>> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>>>>
>>>> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I looked this up and it appears to be part of an old
>>> version of GNU libiconv. XFree86 also has a copy
>>> under a liberal (MIT?) license:
>>>
>>> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h
>> Where do you see that this comes with a liberal license?
>>
>
> Update: look at the lcUniConv directory and you will find the FSF
> authorized those few files under an MIT-like license.
Yes, found it. Thank you!
Problem solved.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 15:57:03 +0200, Mathias Bauer
<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 22.06.2011 20:33, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>>
>>
>> --- On Wed, 6/22/11, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> (5) A header from GNU c library
>>>
>>> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>>>
>>> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>>>
>>
>> I looked this up and it appears to be part of an old
>> version of GNU libiconv. XFree86 also has a copy
>> under a liberal (MIT?) license:
>>
>> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h
> Where do you see that this comes with a liberal license?
>
Update: look at the lcUniConv directory and you will find the FSF
authorized those few files under an MIT-like license.
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 22.06.2011 20:33, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>
>
> --- On Wed, 6/22/11, Rob Weir<ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> (5) A header from GNU c library
>>
>> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>>
>> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>>
>
> I looked this up and it appears to be part of an old
> version of GNU libiconv. XFree86 also has a copy
> under a liberal (MIT?) license:
>
> http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h
Where do you see that this comes with a liberal license?
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Wed, 6/22/11, Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com> wrote:
>
> (5) A header from GNU c library
>
> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>
> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>
I looked this up and it appears to be part of an old
version of GNU libiconv. XFree86 also has a copy
under a liberal (MIT?) license:
http://cvsweb.xfree86.org/cvsweb/xc/lib/X11/lcUniConv/ksc5601.h
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
Hi Mathias,
Would it be possible to get the list of 3rd party modules and their
current status up on the wiki? Discussions should remain on the
list, I think. But if the module list is up on the wiki, along with
status, then we can do some of the analysis in parallel.
https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/OOODEV/Wiki+Home
-Rob
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 3:25 AM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
>
> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
>
> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
>
> (2) connectivity/workben/TT/StartTest.class
>
> Binary file committed to the repository; I doubt that we want to have that
> in the Apache repo. As it is only test code, we can check that later. Would
> be nice to know what this is nevertheless. There is a java file with the
> same name in this folder.
>
> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>
> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
> * All rights reserverd.
>
> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>
> (4) More binary files in our code
>
> extensions/test/ole/EventListenerSample/VBEventListener/VBasicEventListener.dll
> xmerge/source/activesync/BIN/xmergesync.dll
>
> I doubt that we want to have them in the repository, or ... ?
>
> (5) A header from GNU c library
>
> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>
> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>
> (6) Header files only with Copyright header, but no license
>
> twain/inc/twain.h
> ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma.h
>
> (7) MPL headers
>
> xmlsecurity/source/xmlsec/nss/nssrenam.h
>
> It's only a header - I assume that because we can't use nss anyway this
> header file is obsolete also.
>
> (8) Regexp
>
> regexp/source/reclass.hxx
> regexp/source/reclass.cxx
>
> A complete mess, IMHO.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Grzegorz Rajda <me...@gmail.com>.
I remember year 2007, MS Office 2007 and Red Office (last based on OOo).
Super UI requested by this external community starting new time for OOo
-> death. OOo haven't enath peaople in developers community to release
this new ideas. We haven't right DOC support (for example big files with
a lot of images). We need to select new goals and release it as soon as
possible. New organization should have modern ideas and mechanism to that.
On 22.06.2011 00:30, Christian Lippka wrote:
> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms
> of creating
> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more
> time coding
> and less time community building.
>
> Am 22.06.2011 00:20, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>> Hi Mathias,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mathias
>> Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>> On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows
>>>>> download
>>>>> size
>>>>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
>>>> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
>>>> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
>>>> installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
>>>>
>>>> So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
>>> <sigh> I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion.</sigh>
>> But you were the one who made that nonsense statement. Live with it.
>>
>>> And I still fail to see how that related to performance.
>> It is not. Only thing that is related to size is the amount of data
>> needed to read from disk and how much memory that useless data uses.
>> But no, I don't know whether that accounts to performance at all, and
>> as I'm not using windows myself, I don't care either. Or otherwise
>> put: No idea whether the windows9x compatibility stuff that was
>> removed for example was ifdef 0 ed already, or whether it ended up in
>> the compiled result..
>> But just because the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the
>> other, doesn't make that other part irrelevant.
>>
>> All I asked for is to not compare apples with oranges. Not more, not
>> less.
>> So many b*t is written and picked up by others, so don't start it here.
>>
>>> Can we now go back to real work again?
>> Well, consider me as observer only/ignore me, I surely won't hinder
>> you from doing your work. But I surely won't just accept any nonsense
>> written here without commenting.
>>
>> (as for performance: I myself didn't bother to compare for myself, but
>> users report that LO feels faster for them, so they are happy, and
>> that's what counts in the end)
>>
>> ciao
>> Christian
>>
>
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:30 PM, Christian Lohmaier <cl...@openoffice.org>wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
> > As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
> > creating
> > a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more
> time
> > coding
> > and less time community building.
>
> The problem is that all the community building efforts that were
> slowly beginning to work during Sun's governance were nullified when
> Oracle took over.
>
I dont agree and I can name many people that were greatly with the community
from Sun, for example Rafaella Braconi and Rosana Ardilla and another member
in the Marketing list that wanted to build the right efforts to create
commerrcials like the one from Firefox. The key however is that community
building is hard and even if people tell you that they will do community
things, even thought they sound fun, things never picked up.
I do remember many efforts initiatived from Oracle/Sun that fell into deft
silence. Others that didnt but anyway people were making the effort.
> It is you to blame that large parts just waited for a foundation to
> form, and sure, you can go on and whine about how bad LO and the TDF
> is because the moved away, and you can keep on saying that the
> contributions that all the volunteers did to LO in the meantime were
> just whitespace cleanups (which of course is not true) and belittle
> all the numerous contributions. Sure, continue to live in your
> parallel world - but don't expect to have any success with that
> attitude.
> At least there was and is progress on LibreOffice, while there was
> stagnation on OOo.
>
> And I fully agree - as a developer you should stop bitching around.
> And as Mathias wrote "go back to real work". But where is that info
> and support form Oracle's staff regarding the infrastructure
> questions? No answer to size of bugzilla-database, etc. (at lest not
> public/on this or the infrastructure list). What about pootle - will
> it come back ata ll= Stuff that is so easy to obtain for people with
> access, but instead you complain about how "evil" TDF and LO is?
> Sorry, but you really should wake up and get over with.
>
> OOo had built a great community and started to be trusted by companies
> and government agencies. OOo had the "foot in the door". Those who
> played with the idea of switching to OOo now backed off. And if open
> source community is lucky, the'll consider moving to LO instead of
> sticking with MS-Office.
> Now with the move to Apache you basically start over with that
> trust-building. What could save OOo is the name it has, but for that
> to work you really need to be quick in creating something that is
> usable for the end-user, and not just something that works for the
> apache process. Just removing all license conflicts won't do it.
>
> TDF/LO already did prove that it is capable of doing all the related
> work, apache-OOo just is getting started and already has an
> inferiority complex on the one hand (but considers itself as upstream
> on the other hand). You still have a long way to go until Apache-OOo
> is considere "upstream". No matter whether you have to trademark or
> not is irrelevant when you cannot compensate for the stuff that needs
> to be removed.
>
> Feel free to start bitching about LO once you got the first build from
> apache-OOo sources.
>
> And in case you cannot differentiate yourself: LO does not spend much
> time community building. The people just come to LO by themselves,
> press was/is positive towards TDF/LO not because we bribe them to
> write nice articles about us. TDF and LO is a real thing. You can get
> in touch, you can work on it right away. And people like that. As
> simple as that.
>
> TDF people have tried to communicate very positively regarding OOo's
> move to Apache, but IBM's Rob Weir (& others) didn't stop to attack
> TDF/LO in his blog and in other spots. Journalists thankfully are not
> stupid enough to believe anything some high-profile person writes.
> And you and IBM wonder why you did get the counter-reaction of the
> TDF-Camp (not by TDF spokespersons, but by volunteers) that just could
> not take that crap anymore.
>
> And last but not least about the user-feeling:
> Yes, you should listen to your user-base. Those are the ones who
> promote LO/OOo after all. Oracle did a great lesson on how to not do
> it with the icon-styles. That's one of the first things that LO did
> change, and was very, very well appreciated by the users. Some even
> got that far and stated that this was the reason for switching.
>
> So get down of your "I'm a developer" horse any you'll see that
> listening to users, that pleasing your users is not a bad thing to do.
>
> If LO is perceived to be starting faster just because the splashscreen
> is shown earlier, you might not consider it worth of your coding time.
> But that's the wrong attitude.
>
> But enough of this thread, I'll mute it once sending this message. So
> no worries about being "distracted from doing real work" by me again,
> at least not in this thread.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:54 PM, Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>
>> It is astounding how even saying something *good* about LO triggers a very
>> personal and aggressive response. I refrained to say anything remotely
>> critical
>> about LO in the last days, now I will stop saying anything remotely
>> positive
>> about LO. Lesson learned.
>>
>
> I think is better to not compare the projects on these lines, Why? because
> most of the marketing project (in charge of community building) was done by
> the same people in TDF. Florian, Italo, Cor where very active in the
> Marketing project in OOo. When TDF happened, they were the same people the
> same tasks under TDF. So saying how much a better job did TDF did than OOo
> is like saying how much better you did in Elementary school compared with
> the job you did in Jr High school. I mean is plausible they improved their
> processes but is comparing the same group of people.
>
I would rather compared what wonderful job did Mary Colveig for Mozilla did
for Firefox and their Firefox download pledge in 2008 compared to Peter
Jungue did on OOo at the OOo 3.0 release vs Aaron Seigo up in KDE for 4.0
and so on...
>
>
>
>>
>> Christian.
>>
>> Am 22.06.2011 01:30, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>>
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Christian Lippka<cl...@lippka.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
>>>> creating
>>>> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more
>>>> time
>>>> coding
>>>> and less time community building.
>>>>
>>> The problem is that all the community building efforts that were
>>> slowly beginning to work during Sun's governance were nullified when
>>> Oracle took over.
>>> It is you to blame that large parts just waited for a foundation to
>>> form,
>>>
>> Thank you, I never realized it was me personally to thank for the creation
>> of TDF :-)
>>
>> and sure, you can go on and whine about how bad LO and the TDF
>>> is because the moved away, and you can keep on saying that the
>>> contributions that all the volunteers did to LO in the meantime were
>>> just whitespace cleanups (which of course is not true) and belittle
>>> all the numerous contributions. Sure, continue to live in your
>>> parallel world - but don't expect to have any success with that
>>> attitude.
>>> At least there was and is progress on LibreOffice, while there was
>>> stagnation on OOo.
>>>
>>> And I fully agree - as a developer you should stop bitching around.
>>> And as Mathias wrote "go back to real work". But where is that info
>>> and support form Oracle's staff regarding the infrastructure
>>> questions? No answer to size of bugzilla-database, etc. (at lest not
>>> public/on this or the infrastructure list). What about pootle - will
>>> it come back ata ll= Stuff that is so easy to obtain for people with
>>> access, but instead you complain about how "evil" TDF and LO is?
>>> Sorry, but you really should wake up and get over with.
>>>
>>> OOo had built a great community and started to be trusted by companies
>>> and government agencies. OOo had the "foot in the door". Those who
>>> played with the idea of switching to OOo now backed off. And if open
>>> source community is lucky, the'll consider moving to LO instead of
>>> sticking with MS-Office.
>>> Now with the move to Apache you basically start over with that
>>> trust-building. What could save OOo is the name it has, but for that
>>> to work you really need to be quick in creating something that is
>>> usable for the end-user, and not just something that works for the
>>> apache process. Just removing all license conflicts won't do it.
>>>
>>> TDF/LO already did prove that it is capable of doing all the related
>>> work, apache-OOo just is getting started and already has an
>>> inferiority complex on the one hand (but considers itself as upstream
>>> on the other hand). You still have a long way to go until Apache-OOo
>>> is considere "upstream". No matter whether you have to trademark or
>>> not is irrelevant when you cannot compensate for the stuff that needs
>>> to be removed.
>>>
>>> Feel free to start bitching about LO once you got the first build from
>>> apache-OOo sources.
>>>
>>> And in case you cannot differentiate yourself: LO does not spend much
>>> time community building. The people just come to LO by themselves,
>>> press was/is positive towards TDF/LO not because we bribe them to
>>> write nice articles about us. TDF and LO is a real thing. You can get
>>> in touch, you can work on it right away. And people like that. As
>>> simple as that.
>>>
>>> TDF people have tried to communicate very positively regarding OOo's
>>> move to Apache, but IBM's Rob Weir (& others) didn't stop to attack
>>> TDF/LO in his blog and in other spots. Journalists thankfully are not
>>> stupid enough to believe anything some high-profile person writes.
>>> And you and IBM wonder why you did get the counter-reaction of the
>>> TDF-Camp (not by TDF spokespersons, but by volunteers) that just could
>>> not take that crap anymore.
>>>
>>> And last but not least about the user-feeling:
>>> Yes, you should listen to your user-base. Those are the ones who
>>> promote LO/OOo after all. Oracle did a great lesson on how to not do
>>> it with the icon-styles. That's one of the first things that LO did
>>> change, and was very, very well appreciated by the users. Some even
>>> got that far and stated that this was the reason for switching.
>>>
>>> So get down of your "I'm a developer" horse any you'll see that
>>> listening to users, that pleasing your users is not a bad thing to do.
>>>
>>> If LO is perceived to be starting faster just because the splashscreen
>>> is shown earlier, you might not consider it worth of your coding time.
>>> But that's the wrong attitude.
>>>
>>> But enough of this thread, I'll mute it once sending this message. So
>>> no worries about being "distracted from doing real work" by me again,
>>> at least not in this thread.
>>>
>>> ciao
>>> Christian
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
> --
> *Alexandro Colorado*
> *OpenOffice.org* Español
> http://es.openoffice.org
>
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 6:43 PM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
> It is astounding how even saying something *good* about LO triggers a very
> personal and aggressive response. I refrained to say anything remotely
> critical
> about LO in the last days, now I will stop saying anything remotely
> positive
> about LO. Lesson learned.
>
I think is better to not compare the projects on these lines, Why? because
most of the marketing project (in charge of community building) was done by
the same people in TDF. Florian, Italo, Cor where very active in the
Marketing project in OOo. When TDF happened, they were the same people the
same tasks under TDF. So saying how much a better job did TDF did than OOo
is like saying how much better you did in Elementary school compared with
the job you did in Jr High school. I mean is plausible they improved their
processes but is comparing the same group of people.
>
> Christian.
>
> Am 22.06.2011 01:30, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Christian Lippka<cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
>>> creating
>>> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more
>>> time
>>> coding
>>> and less time community building.
>>>
>> The problem is that all the community building efforts that were
>> slowly beginning to work during Sun's governance were nullified when
>> Oracle took over.
>> It is you to blame that large parts just waited for a foundation to
>> form,
>>
> Thank you, I never realized it was me personally to thank for the creation
> of TDF :-)
>
> and sure, you can go on and whine about how bad LO and the TDF
>> is because the moved away, and you can keep on saying that the
>> contributions that all the volunteers did to LO in the meantime were
>> just whitespace cleanups (which of course is not true) and belittle
>> all the numerous contributions. Sure, continue to live in your
>> parallel world - but don't expect to have any success with that
>> attitude.
>> At least there was and is progress on LibreOffice, while there was
>> stagnation on OOo.
>>
>> And I fully agree - as a developer you should stop bitching around.
>> And as Mathias wrote "go back to real work". But where is that info
>> and support form Oracle's staff regarding the infrastructure
>> questions? No answer to size of bugzilla-database, etc. (at lest not
>> public/on this or the infrastructure list). What about pootle - will
>> it come back ata ll= Stuff that is so easy to obtain for people with
>> access, but instead you complain about how "evil" TDF and LO is?
>> Sorry, but you really should wake up and get over with.
>>
>> OOo had built a great community and started to be trusted by companies
>> and government agencies. OOo had the "foot in the door". Those who
>> played with the idea of switching to OOo now backed off. And if open
>> source community is lucky, the'll consider moving to LO instead of
>> sticking with MS-Office.
>> Now with the move to Apache you basically start over with that
>> trust-building. What could save OOo is the name it has, but for that
>> to work you really need to be quick in creating something that is
>> usable for the end-user, and not just something that works for the
>> apache process. Just removing all license conflicts won't do it.
>>
>> TDF/LO already did prove that it is capable of doing all the related
>> work, apache-OOo just is getting started and already has an
>> inferiority complex on the one hand (but considers itself as upstream
>> on the other hand). You still have a long way to go until Apache-OOo
>> is considere "upstream". No matter whether you have to trademark or
>> not is irrelevant when you cannot compensate for the stuff that needs
>> to be removed.
>>
>> Feel free to start bitching about LO once you got the first build from
>> apache-OOo sources.
>>
>> And in case you cannot differentiate yourself: LO does not spend much
>> time community building. The people just come to LO by themselves,
>> press was/is positive towards TDF/LO not because we bribe them to
>> write nice articles about us. TDF and LO is a real thing. You can get
>> in touch, you can work on it right away. And people like that. As
>> simple as that.
>>
>> TDF people have tried to communicate very positively regarding OOo's
>> move to Apache, but IBM's Rob Weir (& others) didn't stop to attack
>> TDF/LO in his blog and in other spots. Journalists thankfully are not
>> stupid enough to believe anything some high-profile person writes.
>> And you and IBM wonder why you did get the counter-reaction of the
>> TDF-Camp (not by TDF spokespersons, but by volunteers) that just could
>> not take that crap anymore.
>>
>> And last but not least about the user-feeling:
>> Yes, you should listen to your user-base. Those are the ones who
>> promote LO/OOo after all. Oracle did a great lesson on how to not do
>> it with the icon-styles. That's one of the first things that LO did
>> change, and was very, very well appreciated by the users. Some even
>> got that far and stated that this was the reason for switching.
>>
>> So get down of your "I'm a developer" horse any you'll see that
>> listening to users, that pleasing your users is not a bad thing to do.
>>
>> If LO is perceived to be starting faster just because the splashscreen
>> is shown earlier, you might not consider it worth of your coding time.
>> But that's the wrong attitude.
>>
>> But enough of this thread, I'll mute it once sending this message. So
>> no worries about being "distracted from doing real work" by me again,
>> at least not in this thread.
>>
>> ciao
>> Christian
>>
>>
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>.
It is astounding how even saying something *good* about LO triggers a very
personal and aggressive response. I refrained to say anything remotely
critical
about LO in the last days, now I will stop saying anything remotely positive
about LO. Lesson learned.
Christian.
Am 22.06.2011 01:30, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Christian Lippka<cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
>> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
>> creating
>> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more time
>> coding
>> and less time community building.
> The problem is that all the community building efforts that were
> slowly beginning to work during Sun's governance were nullified when
> Oracle took over.
> It is you to blame that large parts just waited for a foundation to
> form,
Thank you, I never realized it was me personally to thank for the
creation of TDF :-)
> and sure, you can go on and whine about how bad LO and the TDF
> is because the moved away, and you can keep on saying that the
> contributions that all the volunteers did to LO in the meantime were
> just whitespace cleanups (which of course is not true) and belittle
> all the numerous contributions. Sure, continue to live in your
> parallel world - but don't expect to have any success with that
> attitude.
> At least there was and is progress on LibreOffice, while there was
> stagnation on OOo.
>
> And I fully agree - as a developer you should stop bitching around.
> And as Mathias wrote "go back to real work". But where is that info
> and support form Oracle's staff regarding the infrastructure
> questions? No answer to size of bugzilla-database, etc. (at lest not
> public/on this or the infrastructure list). What about pootle - will
> it come back ata ll= Stuff that is so easy to obtain for people with
> access, but instead you complain about how "evil" TDF and LO is?
> Sorry, but you really should wake up and get over with.
>
> OOo had built a great community and started to be trusted by companies
> and government agencies. OOo had the "foot in the door". Those who
> played with the idea of switching to OOo now backed off. And if open
> source community is lucky, the'll consider moving to LO instead of
> sticking with MS-Office.
> Now with the move to Apache you basically start over with that
> trust-building. What could save OOo is the name it has, but for that
> to work you really need to be quick in creating something that is
> usable for the end-user, and not just something that works for the
> apache process. Just removing all license conflicts won't do it.
>
> TDF/LO already did prove that it is capable of doing all the related
> work, apache-OOo just is getting started and already has an
> inferiority complex on the one hand (but considers itself as upstream
> on the other hand). You still have a long way to go until Apache-OOo
> is considere "upstream". No matter whether you have to trademark or
> not is irrelevant when you cannot compensate for the stuff that needs
> to be removed.
>
> Feel free to start bitching about LO once you got the first build from
> apache-OOo sources.
>
> And in case you cannot differentiate yourself: LO does not spend much
> time community building. The people just come to LO by themselves,
> press was/is positive towards TDF/LO not because we bribe them to
> write nice articles about us. TDF and LO is a real thing. You can get
> in touch, you can work on it right away. And people like that. As
> simple as that.
>
> TDF people have tried to communicate very positively regarding OOo's
> move to Apache, but IBM's Rob Weir (& others) didn't stop to attack
> TDF/LO in his blog and in other spots. Journalists thankfully are not
> stupid enough to believe anything some high-profile person writes.
> And you and IBM wonder why you did get the counter-reaction of the
> TDF-Camp (not by TDF spokespersons, but by volunteers) that just could
> not take that crap anymore.
>
> And last but not least about the user-feeling:
> Yes, you should listen to your user-base. Those are the ones who
> promote LO/OOo after all. Oracle did a great lesson on how to not do
> it with the icon-styles. That's one of the first things that LO did
> change, and was very, very well appreciated by the users. Some even
> got that far and stated that this was the reason for switching.
>
> So get down of your "I'm a developer" horse any you'll see that
> listening to users, that pleasing your users is not a bad thing to do.
>
> If LO is perceived to be starting faster just because the splashscreen
> is shown earlier, you might not consider it worth of your coding time.
> But that's the wrong attitude.
>
> But enough of this thread, I'll mute it once sending this message. So
> no worries about being "distracted from doing real work" by me again,
> at least not in this thread.
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Christian Lohmaier <cl...@openoffice.org>.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 12:30 AM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
> creating
> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more time
> coding
> and less time community building.
The problem is that all the community building efforts that were
slowly beginning to work during Sun's governance were nullified when
Oracle took over.
It is you to blame that large parts just waited for a foundation to
form, and sure, you can go on and whine about how bad LO and the TDF
is because the moved away, and you can keep on saying that the
contributions that all the volunteers did to LO in the meantime were
just whitespace cleanups (which of course is not true) and belittle
all the numerous contributions. Sure, continue to live in your
parallel world - but don't expect to have any success with that
attitude.
At least there was and is progress on LibreOffice, while there was
stagnation on OOo.
And I fully agree - as a developer you should stop bitching around.
And as Mathias wrote "go back to real work". But where is that info
and support form Oracle's staff regarding the infrastructure
questions? No answer to size of bugzilla-database, etc. (at lest not
public/on this or the infrastructure list). What about pootle - will
it come back ata ll= Stuff that is so easy to obtain for people with
access, but instead you complain about how "evil" TDF and LO is?
Sorry, but you really should wake up and get over with.
OOo had built a great community and started to be trusted by companies
and government agencies. OOo had the "foot in the door". Those who
played with the idea of switching to OOo now backed off. And if open
source community is lucky, the'll consider moving to LO instead of
sticking with MS-Office.
Now with the move to Apache you basically start over with that
trust-building. What could save OOo is the name it has, but for that
to work you really need to be quick in creating something that is
usable for the end-user, and not just something that works for the
apache process. Just removing all license conflicts won't do it.
TDF/LO already did prove that it is capable of doing all the related
work, apache-OOo just is getting started and already has an
inferiority complex on the one hand (but considers itself as upstream
on the other hand). You still have a long way to go until Apache-OOo
is considere "upstream". No matter whether you have to trademark or
not is irrelevant when you cannot compensate for the stuff that needs
to be removed.
Feel free to start bitching about LO once you got the first build from
apache-OOo sources.
And in case you cannot differentiate yourself: LO does not spend much
time community building. The people just come to LO by themselves,
press was/is positive towards TDF/LO not because we bribe them to
write nice articles about us. TDF and LO is a real thing. You can get
in touch, you can work on it right away. And people like that. As
simple as that.
TDF people have tried to communicate very positively regarding OOo's
move to Apache, but IBM's Rob Weir (& others) didn't stop to attack
TDF/LO in his blog and in other spots. Journalists thankfully are not
stupid enough to believe anything some high-profile person writes.
And you and IBM wonder why you did get the counter-reaction of the
TDF-Camp (not by TDF spokespersons, but by volunteers) that just could
not take that crap anymore.
And last but not least about the user-feeling:
Yes, you should listen to your user-base. Those are the ones who
promote LO/OOo after all. Oracle did a great lesson on how to not do
it with the icon-styles. That's one of the first things that LO did
change, and was very, very well appreciated by the users. Some even
got that far and stated that this was the reason for switching.
So get down of your "I'm a developer" horse any you'll see that
listening to users, that pleasing your users is not a bad thing to do.
If LO is perceived to be starting faster just because the splashscreen
is shown earlier, you might not consider it worth of your coding time.
But that's the wrong attitude.
But enough of this thread, I'll mute it once sending this message. So
no worries about being "distracted from doing real work" by me again,
at least not in this thread.
ciao
Christian
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Alexandro Colorado <jz...@openoffice.org>.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 5:30 PM, Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com> wrote:
> As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
> creating
> a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more time
> coding
> and less time community building.
>
umm.... waiting for a drumroll anytime soon.
>
> Am 22.06.2011 00:20, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
>
> Hi Mathias,
>>
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download
>>>>> size
>>>>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
>>>>>
>>>> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
>>>> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
>>>> installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
>>>>
>>>> So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
>>>>
>>> <sigh> I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion.</sigh>
>>>
>> But you were the one who made that nonsense statement. Live with it.
>>
>> And I still fail to see how that related to performance.
>>>
>> It is not. Only thing that is related to size is the amount of data
>> needed to read from disk and how much memory that useless data uses.
>> But no, I don't know whether that accounts to performance at all, and
>> as I'm not using windows myself, I don't care either. Or otherwise
>> put: No idea whether the windows9x compatibility stuff that was
>> removed for example was ifdef 0 ed already, or whether it ended up in
>> the compiled result..
>> But just because the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the
>> other, doesn't make that other part irrelevant.
>>
>> All I asked for is to not compare apples with oranges. Not more, not less.
>> So many b*t is written and picked up by others, so don't start it here.
>>
>> Can we now go back to real work again?
>>>
>> Well, consider me as observer only/ignore me, I surely won't hinder
>> you from doing your work. But I surely won't just accept any nonsense
>> written here without commenting.
>>
>> (as for performance: I myself didn't bother to compare for myself, but
>> users report that LO feels faster for them, so they are happy, and
>> that's what counts in the end)
>>
>> ciao
>> Christian
>>
>>
>
--
*Alexandro Colorado*
*OpenOffice.org* Español
http://es.openoffice.org
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Christian Lippka <cl...@lippka.com>.
As a developer I think we can learn a lot from the LO people in terms of
creating
a user feeling. I think a mistake from OOo was to actually spend more
time coding
and less time community building.
Am 22.06.2011 00:20, schrieb Christian Lohmaier:
> Hi Mathias,
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download
>>>> size
>>>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
>>> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
>>> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
>>> installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
>>>
>>> So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
>> <sigh> I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion.</sigh>
> But you were the one who made that nonsense statement. Live with it.
>
>> And I still fail to see how that related to performance.
> It is not. Only thing that is related to size is the amount of data
> needed to read from disk and how much memory that useless data uses.
> But no, I don't know whether that accounts to performance at all, and
> as I'm not using windows myself, I don't care either. Or otherwise
> put: No idea whether the windows9x compatibility stuff that was
> removed for example was ifdef 0 ed already, or whether it ended up in
> the compiled result..
> But just because the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the
> other, doesn't make that other part irrelevant.
>
> All I asked for is to not compare apples with oranges. Not more, not less.
> So many b*t is written and picked up by others, so don't start it here.
>
>> Can we now go back to real work again?
> Well, consider me as observer only/ignore me, I surely won't hinder
> you from doing your work. But I surely won't just accept any nonsense
> written here without commenting.
>
> (as for performance: I myself didn't bother to compare for myself, but
> users report that LO feels faster for them, so they are happy, and
> that's what counts in the end)
>
> ciao
> Christian
>
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Christian Lohmaier <cl...@openoffice.org>.
Hi Mathias,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 11:49 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net>
>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download
>>> size
>>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
>>
>> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
>> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
>> installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
>>
>> So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
>
> <sigh> I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion. </sigh>
But you were the one who made that nonsense statement. Live with it.
> And I still fail to see how that related to performance.
It is not. Only thing that is related to size is the amount of data
needed to read from disk and how much memory that useless data uses.
But no, I don't know whether that accounts to performance at all, and
as I'm not using windows myself, I don't care either. Or otherwise
put: No idea whether the windows9x compatibility stuff that was
removed for example was ifdef 0 ed already, or whether it ended up in
the compiled result..
But just because the one thing doesn't have anything to do with the
other, doesn't make that other part irrelevant.
All I asked for is to not compare apples with oranges. Not more, not less.
So many b*t is written and picked up by others, so don't start it here.
> Can we now go back to real work again?
Well, consider me as observer only/ignore me, I surely won't hinder
you from doing your work. But I surely won't just accept any nonsense
written here without commenting.
(as for performance: I myself didn't bother to compare for myself, but
users report that LO feels faster for them, so they are happy, and
that's what counts in the end)
ciao
Christian
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 21.06.2011 23:01, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Hi Matthias, *,
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> [...]
>> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download size
>> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
>
> But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
> (it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
> installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
>
> So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
<sigh> I was not the one who started that nonsense discussion. </sigh>
And I still fail to see how that related to performance.
Can we now go back to real work again?
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Christian Lohmaier <cl...@openoffice.org>.
Hi Matthias, *,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:07 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> [...]
> Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download size
> (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo).
But includes *all* languages, as opposed to one single language.
(it doesn't include help though, that is in an extra package, if not
installed you'll get the help online in your browser).
So don't start comparing apples and oranges.
ciao
Christian
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 21.06.2011 20:16, Simon Phipps wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti
> <pe...@openoffice.org>wrote:
>
>> Simon Phipps wrote:
>>> Certainly the code cleanup performed by the LibreOffice developers
>>> over the last 9 months has had a huge impact, both in terms of code
>>> footprint and performance.
>>
>> Can you provide any supporting data? Having some "canonical" metrics
>> would also help in evaluating the future code rewrite that will have to
>> be done at Apache.
>>
>
> I did find some rationale for the LibreOffice cleanup over on Michael Meeks'
> blog that may help people here devise approaches that help:
> http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-06-03-libreoffice-3-4-0.html
>
> Hope that helps,
Not really. It's mainly about the shrinking of the LO Windows download
size (that BTW still is bigger than the download size of OOo). Anyway,
you won't find data about general performance improvements as there
aren't any *at the moment*.
It would be very welcome if LO developers decided to share their
findings or even their results with us. Until that happens, it doesn't
help us a lot to discuss interpretations or impressions of what could be
in LO or not. Please let's get back to OOo and do everything to get the
source code into svn ASAP.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 12:40 PM, Andrea Pescetti
<pe...@openoffice.org>wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> > Certainly the code cleanup performed by the LibreOffice developers
> > over the last 9 months has had a huge impact, both in terms of code
> > footprint and performance.
>
> Can you provide any supporting data? Having some "canonical" metrics
> would also help in evaluating the future code rewrite that will have to
> be done at Apache.
>
I did find some rationale for the LibreOffice cleanup over on Michael Meeks'
blog that may help people here devise approaches that help:
http://people.gnome.org/~michael/blog/2011-06-03-libreoffice-3-4-0.html
Hope that helps,
S.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Stephan Bergmann <st...@googlemail.com>.
On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:04 PM, Rob Weir wrote:
> Did OOo have a specialized "performance team"?
Sort of, see <http://wiki.services.openoffice.org/wiki/Performance>.
-Stephan
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Rob Weir <ap...@robweir.com>.
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 7:40 AM, Andrea Pescetti
<pe...@openoffice.org> wrote:
> Can you provide any supporting data? Having some "canonical" metrics
> would also help in evaluating the future code rewrite that will have to
> be done at Apache.
>
Did OOo have a specialized "performance team"? Are there any test
definitions, measurement methodologies, etc., that we could adopt?
-Rob
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 21 Jun 2011, at 12:40, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Certainly the code cleanup performed by the LibreOffice developers
>> over the last 9 months has had a huge impact, both in terms of code
>> footprint and performance.
>
> Can you provide any supporting data? Having some "canonical" metrics
> would also help in evaluating the future code rewrite that will have to
> be done at Apache.
Not really, just empirical experience of smaller file sizes and better performance on the platforms I'm using. I'm not making a party political point here (not being a representative of any party), just agreeing with the assertion that having the chance to look everything over results in code cleanup and improvement.
S.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 21.06.2011 22:58, Christian Lohmaier wrote:
> Hi Matthias,
>
> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On 21.06.2011 13:40, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
>> [...]
>> Just because you asked, caused by Simon's non-developer view of things:
>> If have checked the latest versions (3.3 and 3.4 Beta) of LO and OOo.
>
> LO left the 3.4beta stage already, so I hope you checked with 3.4.0 at
> least, and not some old version.
<sigh> I used LO 3.4 of course. </sigh>
Can we now go back to real work?
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Christian Lohmaier <cl...@openoffice.org>.
Hi Matthias,
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 4:58 PM, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 21.06.2011 13:40, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> [...]
> Just because you asked, caused by Simon's non-developer view of things:
> If have checked the latest versions (3.3 and 3.4 Beta) of LO and OOo.
LO left the 3.4beta stage already, so I hope you checked with 3.4.0 at
least, and not some old version.
ciao
Christian
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Michael Stahl <ms...@openoffice.org>.
On 21/06/11 16:58, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> So indeed nothing the LO developers have done has observably improved
> the overall performance. The great thing the LO developers did is the
> code cleanup. It doesn't make the application faster, but handling and
> understanding the code is improved. Perhaps it also helps with the
> library rearrangement.
you are overlooking one thing: as part of their code cleanup, the LO
people have apparently removed the FASTBOOL type.
personally i think that the replacement of FASTBOOL by not-so-fast
ordinary standard bools probably has slowed down LO sufficiently so as
to cancel all the performance improvements they have done.
in fact wasn't it the case that in order to ship OOo to certain
countries we needed a special export permit from the US government
because FASTBOOLs were so terribly fast that they could be considered
weapons-grade booleans?
tongue planted firmly in cheek,
michael
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:30:16 +0200, Mathias Bauer
<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 22.06.2011 09:49, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>
...
>> Ispell is BSD licensed and has many dictionaries, but I have no
>> Idea if it has all the required functionality. Alternatively
>> we can just add a dependency to the GNU stuff like we will
>> wave to do with gtk/qt.
>
> We already have experience with supporting different spell checkers
> in OOo. It's easy to add a component using ISpell or another spell
> checker, but still leave the option to use HunSpell in the build
> system. No code in OOo directly interacts with the spell checker
> code,
> we have a stable API between them.
>
> Keeping the HunSpell option would help upstream projects and so we
> should do it. We could even think about providing a HunSpell based
> spellchecker as an extension (though that would need some rework in
> the existing component).
>
Sounds like a plan :).
>> For regex there are many alternatives: in FreeBSD there is an
>> ongoing
>> project to replace GNU regex with a compatible library, but in this
>> case I'd like to see Google's RE2 because it's in C++ and
>> (apparently)
>> as fast as it gets.
> Sounds as if you know something about that. You look like a perfect
> candidate to do the changes. :-)
>
I will be glad to take a look (pointers welcome) but my C++ fu is not
good so I hope a local expert takes over at some point.
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 22.06.2011 09:49, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
>>> I don't know if someone wants to spend time and effort on it
>>> later on but we can import some of the LibreOffice enhancements:
>>> if the changes involve only removing code we don't need a
>>> license for that.
>>
>> Interesting. But it's easier and less work to do that by ourselves.
>> And IMHO removing superfluous comments or unused code is better done
>> on the fly while you are at the file anyway.
>>
>
> I only mentioned it JIC there is some interest in keeping our code-
> base in sync with "that other project that has become a problem to
> even mention" ;).
Good point. I'm sure that it will be no problem to take that into
consideration. It would require that someone pointed us at the
changesets though.
> Ispell is BSD licensed and has many dictionaries, but I have no
> Idea if it has all the required functionality. Alternatively
> we can just add a dependency to the GNU stuff like we will
> wave to do with gtk/qt.
We already have experience with supporting different spell checkers in
OOo. It's easy to add a component using ISpell or another spell checker,
but still leave the option to use HunSpell in the build system. No code
in OOo directly interacts with the spell checker code, we have a stable
API between them.
Keeping the HunSpell option would help upstream projects and so we
should do it. We could even think about providing a HunSpell based
spellchecker as an extension (though that would need some rework in the
existing component).
> For regex there are many alternatives: in FreeBSD there is an ongoing
> project to replace GNU regex with a compatible library, but in this
> case I'd like to see Google's RE2 because it's in C++ and (apparently)
> as fast as it gets.
Sounds as if you know something about that. You look like a perfect
candidate to do the changes. :-)
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <gi...@tutopia.com>.
On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:55:34 +0200, Mathias Bauer
<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> On 22.06.2011 01:07, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>> Cleanups are boring but not difficult. I do think we should
>> focus on having things build first though.
>
> I'm glad that I'm not the only one who prefers to do some work over
> discussing about other applications. :-)
>
Other applications are better discussed in *other* lists :).
>>
>> I don't know if someone wants to spend time and effort on it
>> later on but we can import some of the LibreOffice enhancements:
>> if the changes involve only removing code we don't need a
>> license for that.
>
> Interesting. But it's easier and less work to do that by ourselves.
> And IMHO removing superfluous comments or unused code is better done
> on the fly while you are at the file anyway.
>
I only mentioned it JIC there is some interest in keeping our code-
base in sync with "that other project that has become a problem to
even mention" ;).
>
>>> Anyway, let's talk about OOo now.
>>>
>>
>> Great idea :) Have you seen where the GNU regex code is?
>> I suspect GNU regex is the only piece we need to replace,
>> the rest of the packages with problematic licenses can
>> either be made optional or removed.
>
> I don't agree completely. Indeed regexp is the only part of the
> source code repository that needs a replacement, but there are
> several
> external source tarballs we include into an OOo build that contain
> important functionality, e.g. spell checking. We can't make that
> optional or remove it, we have to find a replacement.
>
Ispell is BSD licensed and has many dictionaries, but I have no
Idea if it has all the required functionality. Alternatively
we can just add a dependency to the GNU stuff like we will
wave to do with gtk/qt.
For regex there are many alternatives: in FreeBSD there is an ongoing
project to replace GNU regex with a compatible library, but in this
case I'd like to see Google's RE2 because it's in C++ and (apparently)
as fast as it gets.
> We will know more as soon as the external source tarballs' licenses
> are clear.
>
Yup, I still need to learn patience.
Pedro.
> Regards,
> Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 22.06.2011 01:07, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
> --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Mathias Bauer<Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Thanks for looking and thanks for being brave enough to post
> your opinions ;-).
>
>>
>> So indeed nothing the LO developers have done has
>> observably improved the overall performance. The great thing
>> the LO developers did is the code cleanup. It doesn't make
>> the application faster, but handling and understanding the
>> code is improved. Perhaps it also helps with the library
>> rearrangement.
>>
>
> Cleanups are boring but not difficult. I do think we should
> focus on having things build first though.
I'm glad that I'm not the only one who prefers to do some work over
discussing about other applications. :-)
>
> I don't know if someone wants to spend time and effort on it
> later on but we can import some of the LibreOffice enhancements:
> if the changes involve only removing code we don't need a
> license for that.
Interesting. But it's easier and less work to do that by ourselves. And
IMHO removing superfluous comments or unused code is better done on the
fly while you are at the file anyway.
But code cleanup is more than removing code: remove code duplications,
avoid to have several different classes to do the same etc. We have
worked on that at times, but that's something where LO really has made
some progress. And this work can be difficult (but it is still boring
;-)), because it often needs some knowledge about the code you are
changing that not every developer has.
>> Anyway, let's talk about OOo now.
>>
>
> Great idea :) Have you seen where the GNU regex code is?
> I suspect GNU regex is the only piece we need to replace,
> the rest of the packages with problematic licenses can
> either be made optional or removed.
I don't agree completely. Indeed regexp is the only part of the source
code repository that needs a replacement, but there are several external
source tarballs we include into an OOo build that contain important
functionality, e.g. spell checking. We can't make that optional or
remove it, we have to find a replacement.
We will know more as soon as the external source tarballs' licenses are
clear.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
...
Thanks for looking and thanks for being brave enough to post
your opinions ;-).
>
> So indeed nothing the LO developers have done has
> observably improved the overall performance. The great thing
> the LO developers did is the code cleanup. It doesn't make
> the application faster, but handling and understanding the
> code is improved. Perhaps it also helps with the library
> rearrangement.
>
Cleanups are boring but not difficult. I do think we should
focus on having things build first though.
I don't know if someone wants to spend time and effort on it
later on but we can import some of the LibreOffice enhancements:
if the changes involve only removing code we don't need a
license for that.
> Anyway, let's talk about OOo now.
>
Great idea :) Have you seen where the GNU regex code is?
I suspect GNU regex is the only piece we need to replace,
the rest of the packages with problematic licenses can
either be made optional or removed.
Pedro.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
On 21.06.2011 13:40, Andrea Pescetti wrote:
> Simon Phipps wrote:
>> Certainly the code cleanup performed by the LibreOffice developers
>> over the last 9 months has had a huge impact, both in terms of code
>> footprint and performance.
>
> Can you provide any supporting data? Having some "canonical" metrics
> would also help in evaluating the future code rewrite that will have to
> be done at Apache.
>
> Not to diminish at all the work done by the LibreOffice developers, but
> as far as I know the largest code cleanup changes (criteria: number of
> developers involved, number of modified lines) made in LibreOffice
> concerned translation of comments and removal of dead ("#if 0") code,
> and this cannot affect footprint or performance.
>
> I saw published stats about how the icon deduplication will reduce
> footprint in future releases (and, to a lesser extent, in current
> releases) of LibreOffice, but nothing significant on performance. Could
> you share some data on it, and especially some metrics that can be
> retested with the future Apache code to assess its performance
> improvements? Thanks!
Just because you asked, caused by Simon's non-developer view of things:
If have checked the latest versions (3.3 and 3.4 Beta) of LO and OOo. I
tested warm start and document load/save performance of Writer, and the
differences on Windows and Ubuntu Linux are negligible. (The usual kind
of test: boot machine, do a cold start of the application, then
calculate the average time of 5 "warm" runs).
But the current work they do with library rearrangement looks
interesting. Merging libraries (or even better: completely rearranging
their content based on its relevance for the startup) should improve
startup performance. We (the OOo framework team) had planned to work on
that also. A lot of refactoring work in the last 2 years was done in
preparation for that.
So indeed nothing the LO developers have done has observably improved
the overall performance. The great thing the LO developers did is the
code cleanup. It doesn't make the application faster, but handling and
understanding the code is improved. Perhaps it also helps with the
library rearrangement.
Anyway, let's talk about OOo now.
Regards,
Mathias
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Andrea Pescetti <pe...@openoffice.org>.
Simon Phipps wrote:
> Certainly the code cleanup performed by the LibreOffice developers
> over the last 9 months has had a huge impact, both in terms of code
> footprint and performance.
Can you provide any supporting data? Having some "canonical" metrics
would also help in evaluating the future code rewrite that will have to
be done at Apache.
Not to diminish at all the work done by the LibreOffice developers, but
as far as I know the largest code cleanup changes (criteria: number of
developers involved, number of modified lines) made in LibreOffice
concerned translation of comments and removal of dead ("#if 0") code,
and this cannot affect footprint or performance.
I saw published stats about how the icon deduplication will reduce
footprint in future releases (and, to a lesser extent, in current
releases) of LibreOffice, but nothing significant on performance. Could
you share some data on it, and especially some metrics that can be
retested with the future Apache code to assess its performance
improvements? Thanks!
Note: of course the LibreOffice developers have also made a large number
of functional changes and improvements, but I'm just considering code
cleanup here.
Regards,
Andrea.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Simon Phipps <si...@webmink.com>.
On 21 Jun 2011, at 09:29, Ian Lynch wrote:
> On 21 June 2011 09:07, Lee Fisher <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> (4) More binary files in our code
>>>
>>> extensions/test/ole/**EventListenerSample/**VBEventListener/**
>>> VBasicEventListener.dll
>>>
>>
>> Others have wanted this file to be deleted since 2003! :-)
>
>
> I suppose one advantage of this process is that it should improve the
> quality of the basic working code base (looking on the bright side :-) )
Certainly the code cleanup performed by the LibreOffice developers over the last 9 months has had a huge impact, both in terms of code footprint and performance.
S.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Ian Lynch <ia...@gmail.com>.
On 21 June 2011 09:07, Lee Fisher <bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> (4) More binary files in our code
>>
>> extensions/test/ole/**EventListenerSample/**VBEventListener/**
>> VBasicEventListener.dll
>>
>
> Others have wanted this file to be deleted since 2003! :-)
I suppose one advantage of this process is that it should improve the
quality of the basic working code base (looking on the bright side :-) )
--
Ian
Ofqual Accredited IT Qualifications (The Schools ITQ)
www.theINGOTs.org +44 (0)1827 305940
The Learning Machine Limited, Reg Office, 36 Ashby Road, Tamworth,
Staffordshire, B79 8AQ. Reg No: 05560797, Registered in England and
Wales.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Lee Fisher <bl...@gmail.com>.
> (4) More binary files in our code
>
> extensions/test/ole/EventListenerSample/VBEventListener/VBasicEventListener.dll
Others have wanted this file to be deleted since 2003! :-)
http://openoffice.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=22738
Maybe it should be moved to the wiki, or the SDK, as a sample, and in
source form only?
http://www.oooforum.org/forum/viewtopic.phtml?t=76592
> xmerge/source/activesync/BIN/xmergesync.dll
This one appears to be related to this:
http://xml.openoffice.org/xmerge/
There's another binary download (JAR) on this page:
http://xml.openoffice.org/xmerge/downloads/index.html
> I doubt that we want to have them in the repository, or ... ?
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Kai Sommerfeld <ka...@gmx.de>.
Hi,
On 21.06.11 09:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
>
[...]
> (6) Header files only with Copyright header, but no license
>
[...]
> ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma.h
>
The ODMA stuff is not even build. Seems, that the copyrighted header
file was accidentally checked in by me back in 2007 (shame!):
2007-06-05 INTEGRATION: CWS bgdlremove (1.4.240); FILE MERGED
2003-08-25 INTEGRATION: CWS abi4 (1.3.2); FILE ADDED
2002-02-22 don't check in the real file here - only point the people to
the place to download file
2002-01-14 first revision for odma impl
For now, we can remove the file (and even the whole ODMA stuff?). If
we want to have ODMA support in OOo in the future, we should pull in the
ODMA SDK (http://odma.info/downloads/#ODMA-20-SDK) like we do with every
other external stuff we use.
- Kai.
Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code
Posted by Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net>.
Hi,
I added another group of files, the unixODBC headers:
unixODBC/inc/sql.h
unixODBC/inc/sqlext.h
unixODBC/inc/sqltypes.h
unixODBC/inc/sqlucode.h
They don't contain any license information, but I assume that they
somehow belong to http://www.unixodbc.org/. At least the library you can
download from there is under GPL+LGPL.
Perhaps someone can shed a light on this.
Regards,
Mathias
On 21.06.2011 09:25, Mathias Bauer wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
>
> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
>
> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
>
> (2) connectivity/workben/TT/StartTest.class
>
> Binary file committed to the repository; I doubt that we want to have
> that in the Apache repo. As it is only test code, we can check that
> later. Would be nice to know what this is nevertheless. There is a java
> file with the same name in this folder.
>
> (3) dtrans/source/os2/clipb/OS2Bitmap.cxx
>
> * This code is property of Serenity Systems Intl
> * All rights reserverd.
>
> We should remove that (and IMHO the whole OS/2 port) from our sources.
>
> (4) More binary files in our code
>
> extensions/test/ole/EventListenerSample/VBEventListener/VBasicEventListener.dll
>
> xmerge/source/activesync/BIN/xmergesync.dll
>
> I doubt that we want to have them in the repository, or ... ?
>
> (5) A header from GNU c library
>
> hwpfilter/source/ksc5601.h
>
> Are we allowed to use it in the build?
>
> (6) Header files only with Copyright header, but no license
>
> twain/inc/twain.h
> ucb/source/ucp/odma/odma.h
>
> (7) MPL headers
>
> xmlsecurity/source/xmlsec/nss/nssrenam.h
>
> It's only a header - I assume that because we can't use nss anyway this
> header file is obsolete also.
>
> (8) Regexp
>
> regexp/source/reclass.hxx
> regexp/source/reclass.cxx
>
> A complete mess, IMHO.
>
> Comments welcome.
>
> Regards,
> Mathias
>
Re: Boost regex
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hi Eike;
--- On Mon, 7/18/11, Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de> wrote:
...
> Hi Pedro,
>
> On Monday, 2011-07-18 07:57:02 -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni
> wrote:
>
> >> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
> >> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
>
> > I know we basically agreed ICU regex is the way to go,
> however,
> > I just read somewhere on the net that Boost regex will
> > become part of the latest C++ standard
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Technical_Report_1
>
> For Unicode, boost regex can be configured to use either
> the incompatible and less capable wchar_t type, or the
> ICU regex, see
>
...
Interesting, I still think that ICU is the way to go,
however if boost.regex is standard it does have it's
appeal.
>
> The Regex_Experimental stuff is very old, incomplete and
> probably totally outdated.
>
OK, just thought it would save some work to have it under
the grant, but if you say it useless then it's OK.
I wonder what Symphony uses, this may be something that
is already written?
Pedro.
Re: Boost regex
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
--- On Wed, 10/5/11, Pedro Giffuni wrote:
...
>
> Now that we are using ICU regex I think we can get rid
> of the Boost experimental Regex and it's README.
>
> I'll remove both tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.
>
Actually, there's no hurry, I think I'll just wait for the
initial SGA work to start before I remove anything.
Pedro.
Re: Boost regex
Posted by Pedro Giffuni <pf...@apache.org>.
Hi;
--- On Mon, 7/18/11, Eike Rathke wrote:
...
>
> The Regex_Experimental stuff is very old, incomplete and
> probably totally outdated.
>
Now that we are using ICU regex I think we can get rid
of the Boost experimental Regex and it's README.
I'll remove both tomorrow unless someone beats me to it.
cheers,
Pedro.
Re: Boost regex
Posted by Eike Rathke <oo...@erack.de>.
Hi Pedro,
On Monday, 2011-07-18 07:57:02 -0700, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote:
>> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
>> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
> I know we basically agreed ICU regex is the way to go, however,
> I just read somewhere on the net that Boost regex will become
> part of the latest C++ standard
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Technical_Report_1
For Unicode, boost regex can be configured to use either the
incompatible and less capable wchar_t type, or the the ICU regex, see
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/regex/doc/html/boost_regex/unicode.html
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/regex/doc/html/boost_regex/ref/non_std_strings/icu.html
Currently I think it doesn't make sense to use boost as yet another
indirection layer on top of ICU that we would be using anyway. However,
it might turn out that boost regex objects and iterators with ICU may
result in an easier to interface implementation, we'll see.
> Since the work seems to have been done, I think we should
> include this code in the grant request, and perhaps use it
> until someone drops in a better replacement.
The Regex_Experimental stuff is very old, incomplete and probably
totally outdated.
Eike
--
PGP/OpenPGP/GnuPG encrypted mail preferred in all private communication.
Key ID: 0x293C05FD - 997A 4C60 CE41 0149 0DB3 9E96 2F1A D073 293C 05FD
Boost regex ... (was Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code)
Posted by "Pedro F. Giffuni" <gi...@tutopia.com>.
Hi again;
--- On Tue, 6/21/11, Mathias Bauer <Ma...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> some more strange files I found in the OOo code:
>
> (1) boost/Regex_Experimental.tar.gz
>
> Should be unpacked and committed or removed.
>
I know we basically agreed ICU regex is the way to go, however,
I just read somewhere on the net that Boost regex will become
part of the latest C++ standard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C%2B%2B_Technical_Report_1
Since the work seems to have been done, I think we should
include this code in the grant request, and perhaps use it
until someone drops in a better replacement.
Pedro.