on Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 10:00:11PM -0500, Carl Fink (carlf@dm.net) wrote: > On Fri, Nov 23, 2001 at 06:51:16PM -0800, Karsten M. Self wrote: > > > ... I'd prefer a modularized, single-app approach to the monolithic > > design of OpenOffice. > > Actually I understand OpenOffice is decomposing the monolithic > StarOffice 5x model into single apps. Not for a couple of major revs, at least at the binary level. I saw a presentation by the SO team at SVLUG a couple months back. In OO and SO 6, the integrated desktop's gone. However, there's a single monolithic binary, with shell scripts which can invoke it in various "flavors" (why they don't take the symlink route and test $( basename $0 ) I don't know). There's some interesting stuff being done with demand-loaded libraries, which essentially means that the application doesn't load a library until its needed. If this design progresses far enough, the app doesn't really need to be split -- the objective is acceptable performance and footprint, how you get there is largely immaterial. However, I suspect that the tack being taken won't be as fruitful as a seperated application approach. Though I could be wrong. The other useful thing for the StarOffice / OpenOffice team to do would be to put their fonts under X rather than seperated out for StarOffice exclusively. Whew! A whole post on this topic and I didn't say "StarOffice, that bloated stuck pig of an office suite" once. Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Home of the brave http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/ Land of the free Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org Geek for Hire http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
Attachment:
pgpBf51RNVWgA.pgp
Description: PGP signature