Re: ODFSVN development status

[Edward H. <ed....@gm...>]

Ivo,

I'm sorry to see we've come to this point.  I can totally agree with the 
issues here.

Where does this leave us for any continuation of the project?  Can someone 
work off of what we already have?  Perhaps if better documentation for the 
Python framework in OOo would allow this in future?

I am still confident that the document change control system I proposed with 
OOoSVN can succeed.  It has not had an update for almost a year so I am 
tempted to put some work into a minor update.  Would this be futile?

OOo is not the entire universe of open source office software and it may be 
that another office suite with a better documented Python framework would be 
the best place to implement this.  There was some interest generated on the 
KOffice bugtracker by the initial OOoSVN release with the downside being that 
it was OOo only.  With a partially working ODFSVN Python module, work on an 
ODFSVN for KOffice might progress quicker than it has done with OOo.

On Friday 18 July 2008 12:56:20 Ivo van der Wijk wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I've been really quiet for the last few weeks. I've been trying to
> figure out what's available and what's required to create a usable OOo
> extension. It boils down to the following points:
>
> - a stable, usable 1.0 version of ODFSVN on top of which the extension
> can be built
> - A usable, well documented OOo python extension framework and
> extension examples
>
> Both points are a problem right now.
>
> Wichert and I initially agreed that the ODFSVN commandline client
> ("milestone 1") was done and I would start working on milestone 2, the
> extension. It turns out the command line version is far from finished
> (it actually didn't even work when I started) and it's probably still
> not production quality. It's also not my task to make the commandline
> version production quality but I depend on it to start my work on the
> extension.
>
> Also, I seriously doubt if the current implementation is suitable to
> be used for an extension at all. As Edward pointed out in his email on
> May 31st, there may be issues if you try to access the odt if it's
> opened by OpenOffice.org (or any other windows application). I assumed
> this wouldn't be a problem because the extension will be able to run
> as part of  OOo in stead of as a separate process. This is true, but
> the current implementation depends on svn as an external application,
> so the file will still be accessed externally.
>
> Lastly, I've found out that the OOo python extension documentation /
> support is currently really minimal. There's a Python OOo bridge
> available, but I have the impression it's hardly being used at all
> (except for some very small, trivial extensions). Documentation
> (specifically related to Python) and python examples are also very
> limited. An inquiry on the list if anyone had any tips gave 0 results
> as well. I seriously underestimated this when I started working on
> ODFSVN.
>
> I've contacted Wichert over 3 weeks ago with these issues but he
> hasn't responded yet. I don't really know how to continue from here.
>
> Because there is no usable 1.0 version to continue from and current
> python support in OOo is too limited / poorly documented, it's not
> feasible for me to try to implement the extension. I will return the
> project back to Wichert and he will have to decide how to continue
> from there.
>
> Regards
>
> Ivo
>
> --
> Drs. I.R. van der Wijk / m3r Consultancy B.V.
> PO-box 51091, 1007 EB Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> KVK: 34243113
> Tel: +31-20-7173155 / Fax: +31-84-8399422
> Email: iv...@m3... / web: http://m3r.eu / PGP: http://m3r.nl/~ivo/pgp.txt
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> !DSPAM:1198,488085b920624496425350!