openoffice-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Alexandro Colorado <>
Subject RE: [DISCUSS] Qt as a replacement for VCL
Date Thu, 15 Jan 2015 09:04:20 GMT
In 2007 Nokia people were interested in taking this, they were pushing
mobile technology and having an office suite in Qt with the brand awareness
of OpenOffice.Org was a competitive advantage for their platform. I always
offer an open venue to get their sentiment  relayed to some core sun
developers, however never really got a
​ re​al push on the ML. I would have loved to really see the deep technical
details between VCL and Qt's widgets.

On Jan 14, 2015 11:28 AM, "Dennis E. Hamilton" <>

> Maintaining the independently-developed VCL GUI framework is an
> important concern.  (Then there's UNO as a cross-platform COM
> derivative.)
> The problem with much of the complexity of AOO, it seems to me,
> is that it is difficult to find improvements that can be
> achieved with progressions of small changes that have every-
> think still working each step of the way. Combined with the
> level of expertise required to know what changes are safe
> and consistent with the architecture of AOO, there is a big
> challenge for identifying any major moves.
> It would be great to know what insights there are for
> cultivating and sustaining the necessary expertise and
> maybe simplifying the learning curve and entrance
> requirements.  Maybe just keep doing more of what is
> already being done in this area?
>  -- replying below to --
> From: Kay Schenk []
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2015 15:46
> To: OOo Apache
> Subject: [DISCUSS] Qt as a replacement for VCL
> Something I started thinking about and ta's been proposed before --
> In my mind, we could use some assistance in the maintenance of the
> toolkit for our UI instead of continuing to do it ourselves. This said,
> I know next to nothing about QT and from what I've seen, the licensing
> is pretty complicated and might not work for the ASF --
> <orcmid>
>   I finally noticed and followed the markmail link above.  Of course,
>   in January 2009, all of was under LGPL and the license
>   was not a concern for the open-source side of things.  The private
>   commercial licensing of OO.o by Sun (e.g., to IBM) would have been a
>   concern.
>      The dependency on what continued to be a pretty closely-held project
>   might have been a concern even then.
>      If The Document Foundation had decided this was a good idea, the
>   prospect of an ecumenical accommodation with LibreOffice would be even
>   stranger today than it already is [;<).
> </orcmid>
> Main web site --
> Thoughts?
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> MzK
> "There's a bit of magic in everything,
>   and some loss to even things out."
>                     -- Lou Reed
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail:
> For additional commands, e-mail:

  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message