GSoC idea

[Sebastian Sauer]

On 02/23/2012 05:52 PM, Smit Patel wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 23, 2012 at 3:36 PM, Sebastian Sauer <mail at dipe.org 
> <mailto:mail at dipe.org>> wrote:
>
>     On 02/23/2012 01:31 PM, Smit Patel wrote:
>>     Hi everyone,
>>
>>     I'd like to propose a GSoC project. Here's the brief description
>>     about project idea.
>>     Provide a dbus API that provides an generic interface that can be
>>     used by external bibliography engines (xbiblio, kbibtex, bibus)
>
>     dbus is optional[1] and so would be everything that depends on it.
>     So, why dbus? Why not just a plugin? If it should be in another
>     process (stability, long-running things, shared among
>     Words-processes, etc) then why not for example QLocalServer?
>
> If dbus is not available for windows and OSX then we can rule that 
> out. We can consider what bibliography engines like bibus, kbibtex etc 
> are using for the same thing with LO and MS Office.

I just had a quick look at xbiblio, kbibtex:and bibus. Am I right that 
none of them comes with a dbus daemon? So, I seriously ask myself why 
you like to drag dbus in? Why not just do it the same way it's done in 
e.g. Kile (I assume linking against a lib)?

I just bring up the topic cause your proposal explicit names dbus but 
does not name a reason why and for what. So, I suggest to either make 
very clear in your proposal for what and why you will use dbus XOR 
change the proposal do not make that given but turn it into something 
you need to investigate/research during the gsoc-time to see if that's 
the best approach. So, something like "investigate and research 
technology-choices to integrate bibliography engines like xbiblio, 
kbibtex and bibus into Calligra".

> For other options I haven't try studying them in detail. We'll discuss 
> about it on IRC.
>
>>     Calligra words doesn't have a good way to manage references.
>>     These engines can manage references and insert bibliography using
>>     interface provided.
>
>     Guess there would be quit some work needed in core-code to make it
>     proper update references on loading/saving/editing. Does what ODF
>     specifies cover what you propose? If yes then it should maybe not
>     be optional and no be available for so many platforms[1]. If not
>     then how to you plan to keep interoperability? I think your
>     proposal includes loading/saving?
>
>
> Yes. I need to change some core-code but bibliography engine is in 
> place. So it won't be a big problem. I think the confusion is because 
> I haven't merged my branch words-references-bibliography-smit with 
> master. My branch has all the changes done so far for bibliography 
> support.

Ah, good to know[1] :) I would definitively add to your proposal 
references of the work you did already. Its a *huge* advantage your 
proposal has over all other proposals that you already did some of the 
work. So, imho your proposal should include some words what you have 
already and how exactly you like to spend the gsoc-time to improve that.

[1] Well, I did know you worked on that topic before but have no clue in 
what state that work is. Means what is done and what you like to do 
during the gsoc-time. But yes, that's maybe a bit to much input for a 
first "gsoc idea" mail but more material for the final proposal. In any 
case lot of thanks for hacking on that important topic!

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/calligra-devel/attachments/20120224/e4ef29ee/attachment.htm>