From ooo-dev-return-795-apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive=incubator.apache.org@incubator.apache.org Wed Jun 22 06:56:14 2011 Return-Path: X-Original-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@minotaur.apache.org Received: from mail.apache.org (hermes.apache.org [140.211.11.3]) by minotaur.apache.org (Postfix) with SMTP id EC36A65A8 for ; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:56:13 +0000 (UTC) Received: (qmail 60556 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2011 06:56:12 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-incubator-ooo-dev-archive@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 60407 invoked by uid 500); 22 Jun 2011 06:56:04 -0000 Mailing-List: contact ooo-dev-help@incubator.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Delivered-To: mailing list ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Received: (qmail 60365 invoked by uid 99); 22 Jun 2011 06:56:00 -0000 Received: from nike.apache.org (HELO nike.apache.org) (192.87.106.230) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:56:00 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,SPF_PASS,T_TO_NO_BRKTS_FREEMAIL X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (nike.apache.org: domain of Mathias_Bauer@gmx.net designates 213.165.64.22 as permitted sender) Received: from [213.165.64.22] (HELO mailout-de.gmx.net) (213.165.64.22) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with SMTP; Wed, 22 Jun 2011 06:55:50 +0000 Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 22 Jun 2011 06:55:29 -0000 Received: from d193046.adsl.hansenet.de (EHLO [192.168.1.2]) [80.171.193.46] by mail.gmx.net (mp054) with SMTP; 22 Jun 2011 08:55:29 +0200 X-Authenticated: #17242763 X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX18ekDpi9IcesFETjUn1c5fuqEEuU3YQUBkAjkPLHW ZUF60ZGjlwGpoX Message-ID: <4E0191E6.4030006@gmx.net> Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2011 08:55:34 +0200 From: Mathias Bauer User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Lightning/1.0b2 Mnenhy/0.8.3 OracleBeehiveExtension/1.0.0.2-OracleInternal ObetStats/CATCATCATCATCATCAFCATLAF_1292428138647-396660266 Thunderbird/3.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: ooo-dev@incubator.apache.org Subject: Re: Some more strange files in the OOo code References: <429090.75442.qm@web113504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> In-Reply-To: <429090.75442.qm@web113504.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0 X-Virus-Checked: Checked by ClamAV on apache.org On 22.06.2011 01:07, Pedro F. Giffuni wrote: > --- On Tue, 6/21/11, Mathias Bauer wrote: > > ... > > Thanks for looking and thanks for being brave enough to post > your opinions ;-). > >> >> So indeed nothing the LO developers have done has >> observably improved the overall performance. The great thing >> the LO developers did is the code cleanup. It doesn't make >> the application faster, but handling and understanding the >> code is improved. Perhaps it also helps with the library >> rearrangement. >> > > Cleanups are boring but not difficult. I do think we should > focus on having things build first though. I'm glad that I'm not the only one who prefers to do some work over discussing about other applications. :-) > > I don't know if someone wants to spend time and effort on it > later on but we can import some of the LibreOffice enhancements: > if the changes involve only removing code we don't need a > license for that. Interesting. But it's easier and less work to do that by ourselves. And IMHO removing superfluous comments or unused code is better done on the fly while you are at the file anyway. But code cleanup is more than removing code: remove code duplications, avoid to have several different classes to do the same etc. We have worked on that at times, but that's something where LO really has made some progress. And this work can be difficult (but it is still boring ;-)), because it often needs some knowledge about the code you are changing that not every developer has. >> Anyway, let's talk about OOo now. >> > > Great idea :) Have you seen where the GNU regex code is? > I suspect GNU regex is the only piece we need to replace, > the rest of the packages with problematic licenses can > either be made optional or removed. I don't agree completely. Indeed regexp is the only part of the source code repository that needs a replacement, but there are several external source tarballs we include into an OOo build that contain important functionality, e.g. spell checking. We can't make that optional or remove it, we have to find a replacement. We will know more as soon as the external source tarballs' licenses are clear. Regards, Mathias