Re: Apache Open Office IAccessible2 QA ia2 branch builds

Jamie, Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:21:02 +1000 From: James Teh mailto:ja...@nvaccess.org>> To: NVDA screen reader development Subject: Re: [NVDA-dev] Apache Open Office IAccessible2 QA ia2 branch builds >Hi Stuart, >Thanks for letting us know. Initial testing is very promising. I'm >

Re: Tutorial About

Hi Jorge, On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 12:06:12AM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote: > Here is the changes I made, I declare the button according to the tutorial, > but > I have not the expected results. > > http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313036 > http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313037 > > The changes I have done

Re: Tutorial About

Here are the patch. 2013/2/12 jorge ivan poot diaz > Here is the changes I made, I declare the button according to the tutorial > , but I have not the expected results. > > http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313036 > http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313037 > > The changes I have done well, as each code I put it wh

Re: Tutorial About

Here is the changes I made, I declare the button according to the tutorial, but I have not the expected results. http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313036 http://ooo.pastebin.ca/2313037 The changes I have done well, as each code I put it where it belongs. 2013/2/11 jorge ivan poot diaz > I understand th

Re: Updating Java libraries

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:37:35PM -0500, Michael Lam wrote: > I have updated the external_deps.lst with the updated hsqldb > information. If someone can give me some pointer into how to just > retrieve the jar instead of the source You don't retrieve precompiled stuff. The logic is: a) don't inc

Re: Updating Java libraries

I am guessing my next steps would be looking into updating the build to pull the jar? Better use the mechanism provided by main/external_deps.lst Herbert I have updated the external_deps.lst with the updated hsqldb information. If someone can give me some pointer into how to just retrieve

Re: Updating Java libraries

On 02/11/2013 05:43 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 02/11/2013 02:19 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then. Fred More than likely no need unless certain sites/people refuse to update to java 1.7. I really can't imagine who that would be at this point. On Mon, Feb

Re: Tutorial About

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 09:00:55PM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote: > I understand the changes but that should not impede the buttons may not work > as > I applied the instructions in the required classes. So why not work? I can't guess without seeing what you've done. Please attach a patch wit

Re: Tutorial About

I understand the changes but that should not impede the buttons may not work as I applied the instructions in the required classes. So why not work? 2013/2/11 Ariel Constenla-Haile > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:26:22PM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: > > ]$ cd /main/cui > > ]$ cat | patch -

Re: Tutorial About

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 11:26:22PM -0300, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: > ]$ cd /main/cui > ]$ cat | patch -p1 if you are in main/cui it should be -p3 instead of -p1 > ]$ build debug=true dbglevel=3 && deliver > ]$ cp -fv /lib/libcui.so /basis4.0/program/libcui.so -- Ariel Constenla-Haile L

Re: Tutorial About

Hello Jorge, On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 07:31:15PM -0600, jorge ivan poot diaz wrote: > Hello, > I've done the tutorial about but the expected result was not successful, > here is the link: > > http://wiki.openoffice.org/wiki/Tutorial_About Those tutorials are rather old, the code has changes in be

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

Oh no, please no popup when I paste that formula into 1000 cells, I don't want 1000 popups. Sadly, I sometimes do stupid things like that when I have a warning in functions that I write myself and a debug message pops up during testing. Yeah, scary! Now, a single warning that is only ever

Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:46 PM, Rob Weir wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: >> On 11/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: >>> >>> No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've >>> done that too. >>> But there is a difference between the mere inconv

Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 6:03 PM, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > On 11/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: >> >> No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've >> done that too. >> But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling >> extensions and losing them com

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

I love it. I'd prefer a warning rather than silently giving me 1 even if I had that in the past. Another idea is to return 1, but have a popup which says: "We are returning 1 to 0^0 due to backwards compatability, but we this might change in the fure. Click here to never show this warning again an

Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 11/02/2013 22:46, Rob Weir a écrit : >> >> My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's >> perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the >> change in base directory for the profile. So all extension

RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

My apologies. I replied to the wrong message, so the context was lost. I was responding to a statement that "0^0 = 1" is not wrong mathematically. I wanted to point out that is misleading, because it is also not right mathematically. POWER(x,y) implements an arithmetic function, and I agree

Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

On 11/02/2013 Hagar Delest wrote: No real problem with reinstalling extensions after a major upgrade, I've done that too. But there is a difference between the mere inconvenience of reinstalling extensions and losing them completely (waiting that someone dare update them). The real issue is her

Re: Updating Java libraries

On 02/11/2013 02:19 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then. Fred More than likely no need unless certain sites/people refuse to update to java 1.7. I really can't imagine who that would be at this point. On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Fernando Cassia wrot

Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

Le 11/02/2013 22:46, Rob Weir a écrit : My impression was that even if we made no changes, from the user's perspective, they would lose all extensions. This is due to the change in base directory for the profile. So all extensions would be lost and need to be reinstalled. So there will be no d

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Dennis E. Hamilton wrote: > This is not a vote. There is a statement about what is acceptable > mathematically that I cannot leave unchallenged. However, that is different > than what might or might not be acceptable computationally for a give case > and I con

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 11/02/2013 21:40, Rob Weir a écrit : > >> Again, you are looking for the "one true answer" and declaring that >> other answers are wrong. > > > No. Even if my personal inclination is for the undefined result, I can > understand the value 1.

Re: Updating Java libraries

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: > OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then. don' t get me wrong, I don' t want to influence your decissions one way or the other. For sure there's a lot of openjdk 6 installed out there. My point was that, going forward, most distros will

RE: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

This is not a vote. There is a statement about what is acceptable mathematically that I cannot leave unchallenged. However, that is different than what might or might not be acceptable computationally for a give case and I continue to refrain from reiterating any argument about that. - Denni

Re: Updating Java libraries

OK, I won't build with java6 anymore then. Fred On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:30 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: > >> Haha, I don't know. I could be wrong. > > > OpenJDK 7 is the current version, OpenJDK 8 is coming along nicely. > > OpenJDK 6 is

Re: 4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the > problem of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it > affects only the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the > dictionaries, I guess tha

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

P.S. The over example: [1-exp(x)]/x tends to "-1" while x -> "0"

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

Le 11/02/2013 21:40, Rob Weir a écrit : Again, you are looking for the "one true answer" and declaring that other answers are wrong. No. Even if my personal inclination is for the undefined result, I can understand the value 1. But let the user decide and just warn him that he's facing a corne

4.0 and loss of backward compatibility for extensions with toolbar

You certainly have seen from the 0^0 discussion that I have raised the problem of the backward compatibility with 4.0 and extensions. In fact, it affects only the extensions with a custom toolbar. But except the dictionaries, I guess that it makes a good deal of them still. The problem has bee

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

02/10/13 04:43, Guenter Marxen пишет: Hi, I've looked in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_power_zero#Zero_to_the_power_of_zero and for me it seems very reasonable to keep the old behaviour, as according to this article many math and other software treats 0^0 = 1 (see the paragraphs

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

Google docs spreadsheet gives 1. On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:41 PM, RGB ES wrote: > 2013/2/11 Hagar Delest > >> Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit : >> >> We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says >>> "whatever you want to return is fine" is of no value, as

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

2013/2/11 Hagar Delest > Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit : > > We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says >> "whatever you want to return is fine" is of no value, as was proven in this >> thread. This is something that I would only accept from a "random(

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:32 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit : > >> We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says >> "whatever you want to return is fine" is of no value, as was proven in this >> thread. This is something that I woul

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:26 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 11/02/2013 05:57, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak a écrit : > >> I usually want things to just work. If an arbitrary value is used, and it >> is not brought to my attention, I may not be producing the answer that I >> really want. Not returning an

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

Le 11/02/2013 09:13, Andre Fischer a écrit : We should change the ODF spec first instead. A spec that basically says "whatever you want to return is fine" is of no value, as was proven in this thread. This is something that I would only accept from a "random()" function. +1. That's also wha

Re: Updating Java libraries

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: > Haha, I don't know. I could be wrong. OpenJDK 7 is the current version, OpenJDK 8 is coming along nicely. OpenJDK 6 is the past. Yes, there' s been some RedHat volunteers saying they' ll keep releasing OpenJDK 6 updates and security fixes

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

Le 11/02/2013 05:57, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak a écrit : I usually want things to just work. If an arbitrary value is used, and it is not brought to my attention, I may not be producing the answer that I really want. Not returning an error gives me a false sense of security. That's precisely my

Re: Updating Java libraries

Haha, I don't know. I could be wrong. I'm not trying to start a debate, but I'm just trying help to get things working on as many current distros as possible. Best Wishes, Fred On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM, Fernando Cassia wrote: > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: > >

Re: Updating Java libraries

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: > but we should also > respect that many distros are probably going to ship java 6 for a > while. > for example? FC

Re: Updating Java libraries

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Michael Lam wrote: > It is partially to address the JDK issue but there have been improvements > in HSQLDB for both performance and conformance that would be helpful which > is why I lean more towards updating to the latest rather than patching the > existing +1

Google Summer of Code 2013: Coming sooner than you think

Google announced the timeline for the 2013 program today: http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/events/google/gsoc2013 The ASF has applied as a mentoring organization in the past. I assume we will again this year. If so there would be a limited number of slots for Apache, which mentors (volunteer

Re: Updating Java libraries

I'll help with testing java 6 and java 7 from Oracle. I vote for keeping up with latest and greatest, but we should also respect that many distros are probably going to ship java 6 for a while. Thus, we should probably work with both then officially deprecated java6 when it's time. Fred On Mon,

Re: Updating Java libraries

On 02/11/2013 01:16 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: Hi Michael, On 11.02.2013 17:21, Michael Lam wrote: I have successfully test hsqldb-2.2.9 against the following 4 issues and it is functioning correctly: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug

RE: Will AOO write .docx?

For some reason, I failed to consider this question until some restless sleep this past weekend. My understanding is that the improvements in OOXML handling are to be made available under the ALv2 license. However, if those are in the form of patches, their usefulness to AOO will depend on whe

Re: Updating Java libraries

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 9:24 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: > Hi Michael, > > > On 11.02.2013 17:21, Michael Lam wrote: > >> I have successfully test hsqldb-2.2.9 against the following 4 issues and >> it is functioning correctly: >> https://issues.apache.org/ooo/**show_bug.cgi?id=96823

Re: java 7 patch

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 2:32 PM, Fred Ollinger wrote: > To whom it may concern, > > Below is a patch to fix some java7 compilation bugs. Also, this is attached. > Thanks for the patch, Fred! I've created a Bugzilla issue for this, so we don't lose track of it. I also added you to the cc list for

Re: Updating Java libraries

Hi Michael, On 11.02.2013 17:21, Michael Lam wrote: I have successfully test hsqldb-2.2.9 against the following 4 issues and it is functioning correctly: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=96823 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=103528 https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bu

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On 11.02.2013 17:10, Andrea Pescetti wrote: Andre Fischer wrote: If the spec said that 2 is the only valid return value then we would have to return 2. But then, since we also read XLSX and the OOXML standard prescribes that 0 ^ 0 should return an error, returning an error would be the commo

Re: Updating Java libraries

On 02/06/2013 12:50 PM, Kay Schenk wrote: On 02/06/2013 06:15 AM, Michael Lam wrote: On 02/06/2013 05:57 AM, Herbert Duerr wrote: I just saw that Ariel had already provided an excellent answer when I had trouble with my mail connection. Sorry about that. On 06.02.2013 11:49, Herbert Duerr wr

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

Andre Fischer wrote: If the spec said that 2 is the only valid return value then we would have to return 2. But then, since we also read XLSX and the OOXML standard prescribes that 0 ^ 0 should return an error, returning an error would be the common ground here: of course we don't want to dep

Re: Updating Java libraries

On 02/06/2013 03:58 PM, Dave Fisher wrote: On Feb 5, 2013, at 8:26 PM, Ariel Constenla-Haile wrote: Is there any recommendation/objection on this? After hsqldb I would like to move on to lucene. In this case, it would be nice to investigate if lucence can be replaced by clucene, this will redu

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:39 PM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: > > On 02/10/2013 10:04 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: >> >> My thinking is the Calc should return the mathematically correct answer. > > ODF standard defines what can be returned. If there is a single > mathematically correct answer, I w

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 09:51:25PM +0100, Hagar Delest wrote: > And have you read my previous message? I don't understand why there > is almost nothing aired when there are talks about breaking the > compatibility of ALL the extensions because of a minor issue. And here > you're challenging a chan

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:57:57AM +0100, Andrea Pescetti wrote: > It is unavoidable that we will open a discussion about the > extensions compatibility; I started this one about 0 ^ 0 which is > enjoying unexpected popularity (and I would appreciate, for the sake > of completeness, to see one exam

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On 2/10/13 9:51 PM, Hagar Delest wrote: > Le 10/02/2013 21:21, Rob Weir a écrit : >> Did you not notice the title of this thread? Has it entirely escaped >> you that we're talking about 0^0 here? If you want to start another >> threat about extensions, then go ahead and I will comment there. But

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On 10.02.2013 00:11, Andrea Pescetti wrote: A good practical example of backwards-incompatible changes in version 4.0 is the behavior of Calc while computing 0 ^ 0. You can find a long issue, with different points of view, about this at: https://issues.apache.org/ooo/show_bug.cgi?id=114430 but

Re: Calc behavior: result of 0 ^ 0

On 2/11/13 5:39 AM, Andrew Douglas Pitonyak wrote: > > On 02/10/2013 10:04 AM, Rory O'Farrell wrote: >> My thinking is the Calc should return the mathematically correct answer. > ODF standard defines what can be returned. If there is a single > mathematically correct answer, I would expect the sta