Re: Remove ActiveX from LibreOffice

Bryan,

OK but someone must confirm that removing activeX has no influence on 
this API functions and the LO codebase can use the ATL stuff without 
activeX and the "CreateObject" will still been functioning.
greetez
Fernand

On 13/01/2016 5:19, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> My understanding is that ATL can do the same thing with or without ActiveX.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_Template_Library
>
> Although as I mentioned previously I'm not much of a Windows developer.
>
> Thanks,
> bryan
>
> On Tue, Jan 12, 2016 at 3:25 AM, SOS <sos@pmg.be> wrote:
> > On 11/01/2016 20:32, Bryan Quigley wrote:
> > > I propose we add it to the 5.1 release notes (and 5.2 notes too) as:
> > > Intent to Remove ActiveX support in the 5.2 release.   If this change
> > > negatively affects your Windows application please email the
> > > LibreOffice development list with your use case and plan for moving
> > > off of ActiveX.  We specifically only want feedback if use ActiveX to
> > > embed LibreOffice components into your application.
> > I aam wondering if  the ActiveX stuff is used to build COM objects from
> > external DLL's ?
> > I uses (as example) a Windows videoplayer using basic and our API
> >
> > Basic code:
> > if oSimpleFileAcces.Exists(filelocation) then
> >                      MPlayer = CreateObject("WMPlayer.OCX.7")
> >                      MPlayer.OpenPlayer(Filelocation)
> > endif
> >
> > Greetz
> >
> > Fernand
> >
> >
> > > If no response, one week after 5.1.2 (Apr 10) is released let's make
> > > the call to remove it (and update the release notes).  If we do get
> > > responses we can obviously decide to change the plan as needed.
> > >
> > > Anywhere else we should post this?
> > >
> > > Thoughts?
> > > Bryan
> > >
> > > [1]
> > > https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.1#Feature_removal_.2F_deprecation
> > > [2] https://wiki.documentfoundation.org/ReleaseNotes/5.2
> > >
> > > On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 11:54 PM, Chris Sherlock
> > > <chris.sherlock79@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On 11 Jan 2016, at 10:41 AM, Bryan Quigley <gquigs@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > To look at this issue from another POV.. If someone showed up today
> > > > > with an issue with a LO ActiveX control embedded in their application
> > > > > that didn't work - what would our response be?  It's an outdated
> > > > > technology that we're not investing in.
> > > > It probably shows a lack of adoption, but it doesn’t look like anyone
> > > > actually has reported issues with it...
> > > >
> > > > > > My position on ActiveX is to leave it (lest we break applications in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > wild,) and to *announce its deprecation* with two goals: first, solicit
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > feedback of LO ActiveX consumers and, if so inclined to continue using
> > > > > > it,
> > > > > > help in its support. And second, to flag a date in the future when
> > > > > > ActiveX
> > > > > > will be completely removed from LO codebase, pending sufficient reason
> > > > > > and
> > > > > > support by its consumers.
> > > > > I'm happy with this.  I'd say a quicker timeframe is fine though.
> > > > >   From the announce, if no one has found an application that uses
> > > > > LO-embedded ActiveX remove it in a month or something.  I expect that
> > > > > if there are some users they might not hear until the install the
> > > > > version without it regardless of what we do.
> > > > Perhaps it should be announced in the release notes, with an actual
> > > > version where it will be removed.
> > > >
> > > > Chris
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > LibreOffice mailing list
> > > LibreOffice@lists.freedesktop.org
> > > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/libreoffice