[Libreoffice-qa] minutes of ESC call ...
dtardon at redhat.com
Sun Nov 11 22:08:20 PST 2012
On Sat, Nov 10, 2012 at 09:05:02PM +0100, Michael Stahl wrote:
> On 10/11/12 17:46, Michael Meeks wrote:
> > Hi Alex,
> > On Sat, 2012-11-10 at 10:51 +0100, Alex Thurgood wrote:
> >> I see your points and concerns. Couldn't we have, as a potential
> >> alternative, a hack (easy or not, I wouldn't know) to replace the
> >> current implementations with something more manageable (if indeed that
> >> is possible, and however that might be defined) ?
> > I'd love to see those pieces split out to be extensions that you can
> > download & use if you want to (personally). That's presumably quite some
> > chunk of work though.
> that would be possible, but there are some open questions as to how to
> best accomplish it: the problem is that non-URE jars are used, which is
> not allowed for extensions. but that seems fixable: the used jars seem
> to be the external "bsh" / "rhino" and internal "ScriptingFramework",
> the ScriptProviderForPython is already an extension so there is some
> prior art on how to do it. also, until commit
> a72a7dc500ffd57662e8b9be61e4676266861c33 the java ones were extensions too.
> the following options come to mind:
> 1) add ScriptFramework.jar to the URE
> this would require maintaining binary compatibility; i have no idea
> if that is appropriate here
I think ScriptFramework is pretty stable. The only change I remember
during the whole LibreOffice lifetime is update to java 1.5: use of
> 2) have 3 extensions and duplicate the ScriptFramework jar in each of
> them; would that actually work if you install more than one of them?
> 3) have 1 extension that contains ScriptFramework plus all 3 script
4) create UNO API for ScriptFramework which can be used by the providers
(no idea how much work this would mean. I just wanted to add it here
for the sake of completeness.)
More information about the Libreoffice-qa