Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice

[Bryan Quigley]

I propose we add it to the 5.1 release notes (and 5.2 notes too) as:
Intent to Remove ActiveX support in the 5.2 release.   If this change
negatively affects your Windows application please email the
LibreOffice development list with your use case and plan for moving
off of ActiveX.  We specifically only want feedback if use ActiveX to
embed LibreOffice components into your application.

If no response, one week after 5.1.2 (Apr 10) is released let's make
the call to remove it (and update the release notes).  If we do get
responses we can obviously decide to change the plan as needed.

Anywhere else we should post this?

Thoughts?
Bryan

[1] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.1#Feature_removal_.2F_deprecation
[2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.2

On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Chris Sherlock
<chris.sherlock79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 11 Jan 2016, at 10:41 AM, Bryan Quigley <gquigs at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> To look at this issue from another POV.. If someone showed up today
>> with an issue with a LO ActiveX control embedded in their application
>> that didn't work - what would our response be?  It's an outdated
>> technology that we're not investing in.
>>
>
> It probably shows a lack of adoption, but it doesn’t look like anyone actually has reported issues with it...
>
>>> My position on ActiveX is to leave it (lest we break applications in the
>>> wild,) and to *announce its deprecation* with two goals: first, solicit the
>>> feedback of LO ActiveX consumers and, if so inclined to continue using it,
>>> help in its support. And second, to flag a date in the future when ActiveX
>>> will be completely removed from LO codebase, pending sufficient reason and
>>> support by its consumers.
>>
>> I'm happy with this.  I'd say a quicker timeframe is fine though.
>> From the announce, if no one has found an application that uses
>> LO-embedded ActiveX remove it in a month or something.  I expect that
>> if there are some users they might not hear until the install the
>> version without it regardless of what we do.
>
> Perhaps it should be announced in the release notes, with an actual version where it will be removed.
>
> Chris