Re: [Evolution-hackers] Port my apps to 2.0

Hi Michael,
On Mon, 2003-12-01 at 20:28, Michael Meeks wrote:
> Hi Ronald,
> On Wed, 2003-11-26 at 10:47, Ronald Kuetemeier wrote:
> > Do I still need to extend Evolution-Component and get the Composer from
> > the shell/mailer, i.e. run it under the shell like it was necessary in
> > 1.4.X? Or did anybody provide a generic way for 2.0 to get components,
> > if so please explain? I would also like to use the Composer from
> > OpenOffice via a Java/C++ extension that way.
> 	You'd like to use evolution's gtkhtml based composor inside OO.o - or
> you'd like to use OO.o's writer widget inside evolution ? either way
> around we need to do the work on OO.o to support the XEmbed protocol.
While I think that's important, my personal interests are a little
different. I came to the realization some time ago that we/I'm stuck in
system architecture of the 80's. We are really not taking advantage of
the capabilities which OSS provides us for integration. For example most
system architecture builds around huge RDBMS, and MS just started to
play with integrating DBM facilities in the FS for Longhorn(maybe).
But from an architecture point of view, we can do that already today
with OSS, since there is only maintenance cost associated with it.
For example, I can build an environment with fam, Postgresql and
extensions build into/onto OO.o to automatically catalog files and
content and make it availably via normal SQL queries. For the files I
want to share from my Desktop. Which could be aggregated into a
"Department" DBM ... linked to Department goals/customers ... . Now
since you have a very confined environment you normally use "limited"
context and well understood terminology to communicate in this
environment. Which leads to a "Google" on steroids for such a
Department. Limited and well understood terminology with a standard
query facility leads to standard API's which leads to computer generated
programs. Welcome to the MS buzz in 10 years, only we can do it
The problem as I see it is that most organizations adopt knowingly or
not to their computer system limitations. While the future has to be
systems which can be easily adopted or adopt (far out) to the
organization and changes to business requirements.  Research shows that
the "me too" organizations are more or less mediocre, most proprietary
products just let you do "me too". While I believe OSS can help you to
be successful while also having a cost advantage.     
I hope you can see, it's a very,very different integration issue. But I
really appreciate the work you guys are doing for apps. integration.
> This needs to get done fairly soon anyhow. Out of interest - why do you
> want that integration ? and/or we have (local) addressbook integration
> for mail-merge in OO.o currently anyhow so ...
Well I have an application which runs for ~6hours, and for security
reasons the machine connection to servers is let's say very limited. But
it creates an OO.o spread sheet when done. I just want the app to send
the encrypted OO.o file when done. I also use virtual folders to link
incoming and outgoing mail under threads, that's why I like to send or
have send all mail through Evolution even if I could use a different

> 	HTH,
> 		Michael.

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]