From: Daniel Carrera Date: 2004-02-11T04:27:03+09:00 Subject: Re: Opinion: Ruby + OpenOffice.org On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 11:35:04PM +0900, Daniel Kelley wrote: > > But this is *not* what I am talking about here. James' work is for > > manipulating SXW files. I am talking about using the OOo API (UNO) to > > write plugins, filters and and even GUI applications based on OOo. > > Not only would this be useful, I'd even be willing to help! Yay! Needless to say, the project is complicated. And I'm not entirely sure how to go about doing that. Why don't you join the following mailing lists: dev@api.openoffice.org dev@udk.openoffice.org To subscribe: send an email to dev-subscribe@api.openoffice.org , etc. I understand that writing UNO bindings is easier if the language in question has a Java implementation, and Ruby does. But you pay the penalty in speed. Perhaps we should ask at these lists how one can do this. We can try to do Java-based bindings first. This would help us see: (a) How difficult C++ based bindings would be. (b) The level of interest in UNO bindings. So we can figure out if it's worth going to extra mile for the C++ bindings. > I looked at the UNO stuff at the time, but it gave me a serious > headache; it just seemed unnecessarily complicated to me, especially > given the simple task at the time: load ..doc file, save as .sxw . I agree. Part of what I'd like to see in Ruby bindings is a much simplified interface. The bindings could do a lot behind the scenes to provide an easy to understand interface. > I would add batch applications to your list above, only because that's > been my primary focus of OOo automation, unless that's your definition > of 'filter'. What is a batch application? When I say "filter" I just mean the ability to read a new kind of file format. Cheers, -- Daniel Carrera | No trees were harmed in the generation of this e-mail. PhD student. | A significant number of electrons were, however, severely Math Dept. UMD | inconvenienced.