openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Yong Lin Ma <>
Subject Re: Next steps for Symphony and AOO
Date Mon, 18 Jun 2012 11:43:12 GMT
For option I, it is a easy path. Quitely like we will keep going with
it. As we see recently, a lot of patches from Symphony were submitted.
The problem with Option I is some features may never be migrated into
AOO, like Async document loading, property sidebar and some
improvements don't look like that important.

If we go with option II, I would agree with Pedro that we will work on
both options at the same time. keep two releases for a period of time
until we are sure that AOO 3.4 user can smoothly move to a new
release. Concerns from  Dennis and RGB's are quite reasonable and need
be  considered first before we make any big move for this project.

The feature missed from the Symphony code base may be exaggerated from
an end user's point of view. Both of them were developed from OO.o 3.1
and quite a few improvements from OO.o 3.x have been integrated into
the symphony code base already

Both options need huge effort. Option I needs more effort but with low risk.

The code has been ready now.
Can people work on the contribution code base if they like?
Can such kind of changes be documented in BZ?

These are decisions need be made by community.

On Sun, Jun 17, 2012 at 1:55 AM, Fernando Cassia <> wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 15, 2012 at 9:24 PM, Yong Lin Ma <> wrote:
>> Symphony get a java wrapper. That needs more memory footprint.
> Well ThinkFree office is a Java-based office suite and very lean, even
> compared to stock
> a 56MB download.
> So I guess Java or no-Java is not an indication of bloat or lack thereof.

The Java part makes Symphony bigger than OO.o. It is not a common
claim that Java makes things big.

> I remember saying 3-4 years ago "it´d be great if Sun bought ThinkFree and
> turned it into "OpenOffice Cloud" integrating it with then-new Google Docs,
> keeping OO.o as ´openoffice desktop´".
> Where would we be now...
> FC

View raw message