Ariel Constenla-Haile schrieb:
Hi Ariel,
>> I am the maintainer of the OpenOffice.org toolkit
>
> I knew that, one of the reasons for the title of this
message was to
> call your attention  , as I
succeeded with the "Getting the System
> Colors (missing feature in the AWT module?)"
message...[your answer at
> http://api.openoffice.org/servlets/ReadMs
g?listName=dev&msgNo=18117
> and my issue 81355: "API to get the system's
colors" ]
>
>
>> and I know that the IDL files need a brush up to be
up to date.
>> Luckily Berend created many issues about the IDL
files which I want to
>> fix in the near future.
>
> Uou! Thanks again Berend! 
>
>
>> You should use "com.sun.star.awt.MenuBar"
and
>> "com.sun.star.awt.PopupMenu". The other
service names are outdated and
>> only supported for compatibility reasons. Could
please write an issue
>> and set me (cd openoffice.org) as the owner.
>
> OK, that's what my mail was intended for
>
> By the way, of what type? RFE, FEATURE...?
The missing IDL files for com.sun.star.awt.MenuBar and
PopupMenu are
clearly defects. The project should be "API" and
owner "cd".
>
>
>>> The example on the SDK works OK, because the
fixed text implementation
>>> has no context menu, but how do I intercept the
context menu of
>>> UnoControls? Is it possible at all? (I mean,
using API, not hacking
>>> OOo's C++ code).
>> No, that's no possible. Currently the toolkit uno
controls are just
>> small wrappers around the VCL based controls. If
you need something
>> like this you have to write a "request for
enhancement".
>
> once again: OK !!!
>
>
> By the way: which is the project I should write to? the
API or the
> Framework? I ask first, because the last time [81355],
although I CC'ed
> to you, I received a not very polite answer from
someone telling me to
> better implement my own code :-( , so before annoying
anyone, it's
> better to know where to write.
You're right that the answer was not very polite. Just to be
sure that I
get the request for enhancement, please set "cd"
as the owner. Otherwise
the default owner of the API project will be notified and he
doesn't
know what we discussed. API is the correct project, but
change the owner
to "cd".
>
>
>> We want to extend the current toolkit API,
>
>
> I am completely aware of that:
>
> [QUOTE from http://www.openoffice.org/editorial/new_leads_cd.html]
> " What would you like next to do with the
project?
>
> I just started a new series of tutorials to better
describe the features
> of the framework project. I hope that more people can
use all available
> framework features to create more powerful
extensions..."
>
> And for this spirit, I thank you!
>
>> but need feedback from extension developers. Only
you can give us
>> information what you really miss. Therefore please
write request for
>> enhancements and let us know your problems with the
API.
>> You can find the result of a gap analysis I did
last year regarding
>> the toolkit API here:
>> http://wiki.services.openoffic
e.org/wiki/Framework/Article/Gap_Analysis_Tookit_API
>
>
> I think I read that the first time you answered me!
> Concerning this, I would like to quote your words on
the 3rd part
> "Missing functions, classes, controls and
information in the awt toolkit
> API" (the emphasis is mine)
>
> "The community was asked to participate in the gap
analysis and provide
> their point of view where things should improve and
what's missing in
> the current awt toolkit API. Although the *feedback* of
the community
> was *not* *overwhelming* some interesting information
could be extracted."
>
> If my memory isn't playing with me, I think that for
the time you did
> this analysis there was no (dev-)extensions mailing
list, am I wrong?
Yes, you're right. The dev-extensions mailing list was
created several
months later.
> If I'm wright, maybe a message posted there with an
interesting title
> (like "AWToolkit Improvement for Extensions
Developers" or the like)
> could now help you more to know the needs of extensions
developers, than
> if I write a mail in this mailing list telling what I
dream of
> (concerning the AWToolkit, of course).
Would be a nice idea, but the features and enhancements I
have to work
on are clear for OOo 3.0. Therefore I don't want to start a
new "request
for ideas" if it's clear that many new ideas cannot be
implemented in
the near future.
>
> (By the way, if could dream without any reasonable
limit, I would dream
> of a Java-AWT+Swing-like API; but I've got my feet on
the ground, and I
> agree with your point: "It must be carefully
discussed how far the awt
> toolkit API should be extended. It should be clear that
it cannot be a
> full featured wrapper for the C++ based VCL.")
I can understand your dream, but resources are tight and we
have to find
the best compromise between time and feature set.
>
>
> Bye, and once again, thanks!!!
> Ariel.
>
> PS: I have been playing with the new AWT tree module,
and got some
> questions, which is the right place to post them, here
or in the
> Framework mailing list?
You should ask your question regarding the AWT tree control
here on the
api dev list. Christian Lippka, author of the awt tree
control, reads
this list and can answer your questions.
Regards,
Carsten
------------------------------------------------------------
---------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribeapi.openoffice.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-helpapi.openoffice.org
|