incubator-ooo-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From J├╝rgen Schmidt <jogischm...@googlemail.com>
Subject Re: Extensions hosting
Date Fri, 06 Jan 2012 16:11:18 GMT
On 1/6/12 4:55 PM, Ross Gardler wrote:
> On 6 January 2012 15:35, Rob Weir<robweir@apache.org>  wrote:
>> On Fri, Jan 6, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Ross Gardler
>
> ...
>
>>> As an IPMC member I would be concerned about a promise of breaking the
>>> Sourceforge stranglehold on the extensions site for the reasons I
>>> express above (ASF cannot benefit one organisation over another).
>>> However, I am only a single member of the IPMC and others may not have
>>> the same concerns.
>>>
>>
>> "Stranglehold"?  I think that inflammatory term is not apt.   There
>> are other catalogs of OpenOffice extensions and templates.
>
> I agree my language is too strong. Even without considering the fact
> that there are other catalogues as you point out.
>
>>> That being said, I had assumed that shipped AOO code would point to a
>>> single, or even default site. Although the financial gain is not the
>>> same I see this as being comparable to Firefox shipping with Google as
>>> the default search engine. Mozilla can do this because of their legal
>>> structure, the ASF cannot.
>>>
>>
>> I believe we're talking about the website, not the product.
>
> I seem to have been misunderstanding something about how the
> extensions manager works. My fault for making assumptions. I imagined
> it listing all available extensions within the application,

that was the initial idea but for specific reasons not implemented yet. 
But it's the idea for the future and a long term solution.
Browsing directly form the app is a huge improvement and would increase 
the user experience a lot i would say ;-)

However,
> having actually looked at it, I see I am actually presented with a
> single link to the extensions site. Sorry, I should have looked
> earlier, would have saved us some time.
not only

The linked ext repo is the default and also used for updates of extensions.

Extensions from our repo don't contain an update Url. The extension 
manager knows if no update Url is present the default repo has to be 
asked for update info about this ext.

It's tricky and the technical details and relation are often really 
important to understand.

Juergen

>
> If that link were pointing at SF then I would be concerned me
> (remember we are talking about at the point of graduation). If it
> links to a website with multiple catalogues listed, or if there are
> multiple links within the product my concern is no longer valid. Such
> a modification is easy to make, even for 3.3.
>
> Thanks for putting me straight.
>
>> When we talked in the past about enabling the product to point to an
>> extension website, I think the thought was that we'd point to an
>> Apache catalog that contained only officially released extensions,
>> e.g., ALv2, QA'ed, voted on by PMC, etc.  That would be the safe thing
>> to do.  With a public, open extension repository we cannot really even
>> vouch for them being entirely free of malware.  It is really "as-is"
>> with a big disclaimer.  So it would probably not be appropriate for us
>> to point to them by default in the product.  (That was Dennis's
>> concern, as I understand it);.
>
> Yes, this is the long term strategy we've been discussing and I think
> it is a healthy goal. But does the AOO podling really want to limit it
> to ALv2?
>
> Ross


Mime
View raw message