[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       openoffice-users
Subject:    Re: [users] Re: modularized openoffice.org
From:       "Michael S. Mikowski" <z_mikowski () yahoo ! com>
Date:       2003-02-03 21:46:00
Message-ID: 200302031646.00923.z_mikowski () yahoo ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

Agreed, Anthony.

OO is great, and I use it daily.  I'm very pleased with it.  This plugins 
stuff sound like a great way to extend its appeal.  Plugins could be traded 
around the internet.  Here are some thoughts:

Plugins could break down into two categories:

- typical
- embedded object

Typical plugins could create output FULLY READABLE BY ALL OO installations.
Concepts for typical plugins include (as listed before by others):

Writer:
- APA formatting  - English Grammer - Pig latin converter
- Foot notes, headers - Advanced templates - Source Code Syntax checkers
- vi editor module :) - ASCII art module - Filters? (e.g. pdf?)
- Email client - Groupware/CMS plugin (saw that coming, didn't you?)

Draw
- Visio-style charting controls -Enhanced vector graphics -3D vector graphics
- 2D precision drafting module

Impress
- Custom templates based on content

Embeded Object plugins would require those viewing the document to have the 
same plugin to get the same effect; however, it would not be required (e.g. a 
blank window could be shown instead).  It might even be possible to arrange 
the API so that plugins for IE/Netscape could be used.  Concepts include:

- Flash plugins for Impress slide shows
- Advanced audio, including mp3 playback for background music in impress
- Adobe Acrobat embedding
- Real Player

... musing ...

-- Mike

On Monday 03 February 2003 04:07 pm, Anthony Valentine wrote:
> > MS Office allows you to uncheck modules during install.  Don't need
> > Power Point?  Uncheck it, and reduce the installation size. However,
>
> That isn't what I meant.  PowerPoint is an entire application, not a
> module.  I'm thinking more along the lines of specific functions. In
> Writer for example; grammar checking, spell checking, tables, headers
> and footers.
>
> > while the phrase "can OpenOffice.org be modularized, like the Linux
> > kernel ...[to] compile in certain features..." might seem like a neat
> > idea to you, believe me it strikes cold terror into the hearts of many
> > "mainstream" Windows users. :-)
>
> Why?  I imagine that those mainstream windows users won't compile their
> own OOo anyway.  What they would do is take the pre-built binaries which
> were compiled (by the whomever does it now) with all/most functions
> compiled as modules.  Then, as soon as they try to perform a needed
> function, the necessary module(s) are loaded.
>
> > I've read several postings recently about people who didn't uncheck the
> > 'associate MS Office files with OO' switch during a plain install and
> > now can't figure out why Word doesn't open their .doc files.  People
> > need the package to remain simple, not grow more complex.
>
> As far as usability is concerned, this wouldn't make things much more
> complex.  I imagine there would be a options tab where you could select
> what modules to load at startup, but aside from that there wouldn't be
> any additional complexity.
>
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@openoffice.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@openoffice.org


[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]