Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
Message-ID: <4F8529B7.4000009@a-w-f.de>
Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2012 14:50:31 +0800
From: Andre Fischer <af@a-w-f.de>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64;
 rv:11.0) Gecko/20120327 Thunderbird/11.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org
Subject: Re: Bundled extensions
References: <4F840EE0.3080406@gmx.de>
  <CAP-ksogfrwFF6kyY+7VRChTGBBHzRriWjW_AXg81YmH-JDJY7Q@mail.gmail.com>
  <4F84398E.3070302@gmx.de>  <4F84DE59.8050700@googlemail.com>
 <1334108431.4188.4.camel@sybil-gnome>
In-Reply-To: <1334108431.4188.4.camel@sybil-gnome>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On 11.04.2012 09:40, drew jensen wrote:
> On Wed, 2012-04-11 at 03:28 +0200, Jürgen Schmidt wrote:
>> On 4/10/12 3:45 PM, O.Felka wrote:
>>> Am 10.04.2012 15:28, schrieb Rob Weir:
>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2012 at 6:43 AM, O.Felka<olaf-openoffice@gmx.de>  wrote:
>>>
>>>>> The bad news:
>>>>> - The error
>>>>> "http://download.translate.org.za/spellchecker/dict-en_ZA-latest.update.xml
>>>>>
>>>>> does not exist." is still present ->  looks not very professional.
>>>>
>>>> That URL is an external one, not one that we control. Do you know
>>>> what the behavior is in OOo 3.3 when checking for an update of that
>>>> extension?
>>>
>>> No, I have no idea what OOo 3.3 will do. But I think it would behave the
>>> same.
>>> But I'm sure we wouldn't have bundled it.
>>>
>>
>> yes it should it be the same problem in OOo3.3. I would propose that we
>> don't bundle extensions that will include an external update Url or
>> something like that.
>>
>> We should bundle extension only that will be supported and completely
>> handled by our extension repo.
>
> ah - ok, that sounds reasonable at it's face. Now if an extension is
> published at the AOO ext. repository and it's implemented in a scripted
> language (basic, js, python, etc) the oxt (extension body) is the source
> code, so that makes easy sense.

Removed the extension from main/extensions.lst in revision is 1324590.

-Andre

>
> What if the extension is in java or c++ or some other language where an
> external source repository is used, however the extension runtime and
> support vector are both through the AOO ext. repository - I would assume
> given a suitable license on the source that it would be, eligible, for
> consideration.
>
> Anyway - I'm putting forth a question that doesn't need to be answered
> today, just thinking out loud I suppose.
>
> //drew
>
>>
>> If no update Url is given in the extension and the extension is
>> distributed via the ext repo the update info Was (and hopefully is, will
>> be) generated on demand.
>>
>> Juergen
>>
>>
>
>