Date: prev next · Thread: first prev next last
2011 Archives by date, by thread · List index


2011/6/24 Astron <>


even though there were some improvements regarding gtk-integration in LO
there are still some issues like the flickering you mentioned. Are there
plans to rewrite LO in gtk or QT as part of the UI redesign? At least in
opinion that would be a huge improvement, make LO look far more
and would probably make coding the new UI easier.
How I understand it, LO is based on a "UI framework" that isn't native on
any system and has to be extended for each OS, right? Wouldn't it also
reduce coding work by simply delivering LO on Windows bundeled with gtk
The Gimp?
What do you think?

You're correct, LibreOffice is based on something custom called VCL
and the only programs that use it are LibO, Ooo, and to a lesser
amount Symphony (which is based on Ooo). It has to be extended for
each other UI toolkit it is supposed to mimic.
Sadly, switching is not as easy as bundling GTK/Qt, else it would have
surely been done already. When there is so much UI to be taken care of
as in the case of LibO this would probably equal a complete rewrite of
LibO. While in the long run this may be worthwhile, it would mean
developers wouldn't do much besides rewriting everything in the next
few years.

A few questions:
Would it really require a whole rewrite?
Would it be possible to replace VCL with Qt gradually?
Would maintaining and developing VCL really be advantageous compared to
switching to Qt? Even when we're on the verge of doing a major UI overhaul,
so a number of things will have to get rewritten anyway?

It also means that instead of starting LibreOffice, the Document
Foundation would have been better spent its time and energy on
developing Koffice or Abiword/Gnumeric and brought these programs to a
state in which they could compete against and Microsoft

Calligra Suite (KOffice) does seem quite promising, based on what I've read
about its architecture. However, like a number of KDE applications, it
suffers from a very messy user interface and a plethora of features
awkwardly cobbled together. It'd be great if someone took it and made it
usable, but I doubt that the Document Foundation will want to do that.

I wonder, though, if maybe building on the Calligra base wouldn't have been
a better idea. After all, the suite is very modular, so most edits could be
contributed back, which would mean a lot less work for both projects. LibO
could also expand its application portfolio, if it chose to. The Calligra
base is very modern, so there would be a lot less code to cleanup (if any at
all), no Java to remove, no VCL to support and upgrade, ...


Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be

Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to
Posting guidelines + more:
List archive:
All messages sent to this list will be publicly archived and cannot be deleted


Privacy Policy | Impressum (Legal Info) | Copyright information: Unless otherwise specified, all text and images on this website are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. This does not include the source code of LibreOffice, which is licensed under the Mozilla Public License (MPLv2). "LibreOffice" and "The Document Foundation" are registered trademarks of their corresponding registered owners or are in actual use as trademarks in one or more countries. Their respective logos and icons are also subject to international copyright laws. Use thereof is explained in our trademark policy.